Legislature(2003 - 2004)
02/20/2003 08:02 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 46-PRIMARY ELECTION BALLOTS Number 1551 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the last order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 46, "An Act relating to ballots." Number 1520 REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 46, explained that in the [Twenty-Second] Legislative session some changes were made to the state's structure of conducting primary elections, which limited the voting ability of people by requiring them to select a ballot from one of the established political parties in the state. He said that it was not foreseen that there could be items on the ballot that don't involve voting for candidates - ballot propositions, for example. Representative Hawker told the House State Affairs Standing Committee that his constituents have expressed concern regarding being forced to choose a political party ballot when doing something as simple as choosing to vote only on the issues, for example. He stated that he felt the situation needed to be remedied as a matter of equity. He mentioned a committee substitute that had been offered to the committee. Number 1425 REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 46 [Version 23-LS0298\D, Kurtz, 2/11/03]. There being no objection, Version D was before the committee. Number 1398 REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER stated that the purpose of [Version D] is to clarify the intent of the legislation. Specifically, the [proposed legislation] requires the Division of Elections, during the preparation of ballots for primary elections, to prepare a separate ballot that only contains the propositions and issues to be voted on. He clarified that that would not change the already existing ballots containing the party candidates and issues. Persons choosing to vote in the primary election may choose only one ballot, which would include the nonparty issues ballot [if this legislation is passed], he said. Representative Hawker stated his belief that this [proposed legislation] levels the playing field and encourages the right and responsibility of all people to vote in the State of Alaska. Number 1292 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he thinks the bill is a good one. He stated his belief that with the current scrutiny of the [state's] budget, it is very important for the fiscal notes to be accurate. He told the sponsor that he thinks that it is inconceivable that [the proposed legislation] could have a zero fiscal note, because [the Division of Elections] will have to print an extra ballot. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that the question to be asked is if there is additional cost to the division, regardless of whether the division can absorb it. Number 1116 REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER responded that he followed the language provided by the Division of Elections during the preparation of the fiscal note. He stated his understanding, regarding the process of preparing ballots for election, that the division would not incur any incremental cost in excess of what it currently spends in preparation for elections. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the House State Affairs Standing Committee is the committee of first referral and the [House Finance Committee] is "normally" the committee of second referral. He added, "And the precedent that we set will come around to haunt us." Number 0978 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if "these ballots" are generated on a contract and asked if [the Division of Elections] could identify what the differential would be in the bid with multiple ballots. REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER replied that he did not know the answer. He said he believes someone from the Division of Elections was available to address that line of questioning. Number 0860 LAURA GLAISER, Director, Division of Elections, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, answered Representative Gruenberg's query as follows: That appropriation was for a six-ballot primary, and this year we've sent out notifications to the Republican Moderates and to the Green Party that they are below the 3 percent, so that the likelihood of a six-ballot primary next time is unlikely. So we thought it was justified to say that we can absorb those costs, because we've been given an appropriation that allows for six ballots, which really would be a seventh ballot, which is the way it was referred to previously. Number 0795 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Sonneman v. State, a case regarding the constitutionality of the rolling ballot, where "the order of the people would vary, so the person at the top of the ballot would not continue to occupy that advantage." He reported that the cost to do one extra ballot statewide - in order to roll it - would have been $50,000. He continued as follows: That testimony impelled the [Alaska] Supreme Court to uphold the constitutionality of no rolling ballot. It was absolutely outcome-determinative. And a small fiscal note like this can have tremendous, unanticipated consequences. Number 0688 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referring to the previous testimony of Ms. Glaiser, stated the following: And here, what you're saying Ms. Glaiser is that because a couple of minor parties are no longer on the ballot, there will be a cost savings. So, in fact, there would be a lapse, or additional money coming back to the state from this one little item, because you're not going to have to have as many ballots printed. If this bill passes, you'll still be able to absorb it, but the money coming back to the general fund will be less. So there really is a cost, it's just that the savings will be less. And for ... all of these reasons I think that it's really important that we have accurate fiscal notes. Number 0655 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he wants to echo what Representative Gruenberg said. In this case, the amount of money is small, but there could be other instances involving substantial amounts of money. He noted that he believes there was an overestimation of $12 million this year for pupil allocation, for example. He said that that money ought to come back to the general fund, [the legislature] ought to know about it, and, if it is to be reappropriated, it ought to be listed on the fiscal notes. He said, "It's absolutely imperative for truth and honesty in budgeting that these numbers be available." Number 0581 SEAN HALLORAN testified that he is not [affiliated] with any group, including political parties, which is why he is testifying and also why he is suing the Division of Elections over the "current scheme that's in place right now." He stated his belief that the current "scheme," which requires voters to choose a political party in order to be allowed to vote on an initiative, referendum, or any other ballot measure on a primary election day, is unconstitutional. He opined that [the proposed legislation] is one of many "fixes" that could be implemented. All the "fixes" have one thing in common, he said, which is to make a state ballot, as opposed to a political party ballot, available to voters. MR. HALLORAN explained that political parties are private organizations that have a right to exclude "under the law" any voters who are not members of that party. Currently, if each of the political parties closed its primary [election ballot], then no one who wasn't a member of a political party would be able to vote. He suggested that if [the legislature] is worried about the cost of another ballot, for example, it could "just have initiatives decided at the general election, instead of on primary election day, when [there is] a statewide ballot with state issues and state races being conducted." MR. HALLORAN said that the "fix" will have to be done sooner or later, either voluntarily [through legislation], or when the court declares the current system unconstitutional. He told the committee that, "on the last election day - last summer," he got a restraining order from the court which allowed him to vote without expressing a preference for a political party. He said he received hundreds of phone calls within a couple of weeks after that election, from people congratulating him [for his action] and saying that they wished they had "done something similar themselves." Number 0270 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted his own following two "fixes" to the problem: First, the elimination of primaries altogether, which would amount to a considerable savings to the state; and second, the elimination of state recognition for political party. He reiterated Mr. Halloran's previous statement that political parties are private organizations, and he said that state subsidization of them is "somewhat questionable" in his mind, as well. Number 0209 MR. HALLORAN stated his opinion that both of [Representative Berkowitz's] alternatives would be perfectly acceptable. Number 0177 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded as follows: "It always strikes me as peculiar that the state keeps track of which political party people have joined. I think it's a fairly intrusive thing. They don't keep track of people's religion, they don't keep track of people's gender, and it seems to me political affiliation is a first amendment association right." MR. HALLORAN said he agrees with Representative Berkowitz. Number 0072 REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he supports the bill. REPRESENTATIVE HOLM moved to report the proposed committee substitute for HB 46, Version 23-LS0298\D, Kurtz, 2/11/03, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. [No objection was stated and CSHB 46(STA) was moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.] TAPE 03-12, SIDE A Number 0014 [The following testimony regarding HB 46 was allowed by Chair Weyhrauch after bill action was taken.] JENNIFER RUDINGER, Executive Director, Alaska Civil Liberties Union, spoke on behalf of that organization in support of the committee substitute for HB 46. She told the House State Affairs Standing Committee that ACLU is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, with over a thousand members in the state. Its mission is to defend the Bill of Rights and the guarantees of individual liberties that are found in the Alaska constitution. Ms. Rudinger said people contacted the ACLU in late July and early August [2002] regarding the issue previously discussed by Mr. Halloran. She said, "We looked into their complaints. We concluded they had a great case. Due to time constraints, we assured them that we would work for a legislative fix, and we thought this would be a no-brainer." She stated that "their first amendment rights to association and speech, and also their Alaska constitutional right to privacy was being infringed by the current system." [CSHB 46(STA) was reported from committee.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|