Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
03/16/2017 03:00 PM House 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 | |
| HB175 | |
| HB1 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 175 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 163 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 175-US PRESIDENT ELECT. COMPACT: POPULAR VOTE
4:33:09 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 175, "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."
4:33:46 PM
JILL YORDY, Staff, Representative Zach Fansler, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 175 on behalf of Representative
Fansler, prime sponsor. She referred to HB 175 as the U.S.
Presidential Election Compact, which is commonly known as the
National Popular Vote bill. She asserted that HB 175 "gets to
the core" of what a vote means: voting is a right and a
responsibility of each citizen; it is how citizens most directly
make their voices heard in the decision-making processes of the
country. She maintained that voting is a sacred right, for
which many men and women have died, and many have struggled to
gain that right.
MS. YORDY offered that there needs to be a reciprocation from
the [election] system to voters - a trust that every vote has
equal weight and consideration in electing the country's highest
official. She opined that the current system favors swing
states, in which there is nearly an equal internal division of
voter preference and a winner-take-all method of awarding
electoral votes. She said that Alaska is not a swing state, and
under the current system, its votes are consistently under-
valued. She maintained that the proposed legislation is being
introduced to start a conversation here in Alaska about ensuring
that every vote is equal.
MS. YORDY stated that HB 175 would ratify a compact intended to
grant the presidency to the candidate who receives the most
votes nationwide by allocating Alaska's electoral votes to that
candidate. The compact would only take effect when states
representing a majority of the nation's electoral votes - 270 -
have individually ratified the compact. Currently 10 states and
the District of Columbia have ratified this compact,
representing a combined total of 165 electoral votes. An
additional 15 states have passed the National Popular Vote bill
in at least one legislative body.
4:36:02 PM
BARRY FADEM, President, National Popular Vote, testified that he
believes there are specific benefits to Alaska of the National
Popular Vote interstate compact. He stated that the Founding
Fathers, in Article Two, Section I of the U.S. Constitution,
gave the people of Alaska the exclusive right to decide how the
electoral votes of Alaska should be awarded. He said that the
question for Alaskans to answer is "What system of awarding
electoral votes is in the best interest of Alaskans and Alaska
voters?" He expressed his belief that Alaska voters would be
much better off under National Popular Vote.
MR. FADEM cited four specific positive benefits to Alaska that
he believes would occur under National Popular Vote. The first
benefit would be that Alaska's votes for the U.S. presidential
candidate would count. He stated that a vote in Beaver, Alaska,
a village of 60 residents located above the Arctic Circle, would
count just as much as a vote in Miami, Florida, or Canton, Ohio.
He attested that a resident of Beaver would know, on the morning
after the election, that his/her vote was included in the vote
totals. He opined that for the first time an Alaska voter would
understand that his/her vote for the U.S. President really did
count. He mentioned that a side benefit would be that Alaskans
would vote before the television stations on the East Coast
declared the winner. He attested that under National Popular
Vote, the winner of the election would not be declared until all
the votes were counted in all 50 states.
MR. FADEM stated that the second significant benefit of National
Popular Vote to Alaska voters would be that the candidates would
campaign in all 50 states. He said that in the 2016 election,
94 percent of all election events occurred in 12 states. He
added that 38 states, including Alaska, did not participate in
the presidential election. He maintained that under National
Popular Vote there would be campaign activities in all 50
states. He said that since all states have television and
radio, every voter in every state would have the opportunity to
hear the presidential candidates talk about issues. He added
that more importantly, in the 2016 election, neither candidate
of either party mentioned the word "environment." He opined
that if a presidential candidate is campaigning in Pennsylvania,
Wisconsin, Michigan, and the Rust Belt, he/she does not talk
about the environment; if the candidate is not campaigning in
states like Alaska, California, Idaho, Wyoming, and other states
that care about the environment, that creates a situation in
which presidential candidates don't come to Alaska and don't
talk about issues relevant to Alaska voters. He maintained that
under National Popular Vote, Alaskans would be exposed to
campaign issues and learn about what the candidates were
offering.
4:40:10 PM
MR. FADEM stated that both major national parties "pump"
millions of dollars into the 12 "battleground" states to build
infrastructure and for grass-roots activities. He said that the
third positive effect of National Popular Vote would be a 50-
state campaign, in which the national parties would re-
distribute that money to all 50 states; there would be a
tremendous increase in grass-roots activities in all 50 states.
He maintained that the presidential election is the one with the
most "sizzle" - the one that gets everyone involved. He
asserted that the infrastructure built for that campaign would
last four years.
MR. FADEM cited, for the fourth positive effect, that in 2012,
$2.1 million were raised by both major political parties in
Alaska. He expressed his belief that every dime of that money
was exported to the battleground states. He asked, "Why would
you spend money raised in Alaska to inform Alaskan voters, when
it's already predetermined how Alaskans are going to vote?" He
opined that for these four reasons, National Popular Vote would
be advantageous for Alaskans.
MR. FADEM mentioned one other reason that National Popular Vote
would be advantageous to Alaska outside of the campaign itself.
He asserted that data shows that "battleground states do better
with the President of the United States than non-battleground
states." Battleground states receive seven percent more
presidentially-controlled grants; twice as many disaster
declarations; and numerous other favorable actions from the
President. He added that Alaska competes with other states for
presidential attention on issues and projects that are important
to residents. He said that if every state was a battleground
state, states would not get preference simply because the
President of the United States needs their vote in the next
election.
4:42:37 PM
MR. FADEM relayed to the committee the issues most commonly
cited as concerns regarding National Popular Vote. He said that
the issue he hears most often is that the current system
benefits small states, and the Founding Fathers set up the
Electoral College to benefit small states. He said there are 13
small states with four electoral votes or less; six are "red";
six are "blue"; and the only small battleground state is New
Hampshire. He mentioned that in 2016, New Hampshire received 21
presidential campaign visits; the other 12 states received none.
He added that this has been the practice for the last 40 years,
and it is not going to change. He asserted that under the
current system, small states are among the most "punished" group
of states in the country. He pointed out that three of these
small states - Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont - have adopted
the National Popular Vote compact, along with the District of
Columbia. He asserted that the idea that the current system is
helpful to small states is absolutely factually wrong.
MR. FADEM mentioned that the second issue that has been brought
up regarding National Popular Vote is the possibility that all
the campaigning would be confined to large cities, such as Los
Angeles and New York. He said that evidence shows that not to
be true. He offered that the 50 largest cities in the country
comprise only 15 percent of the population; 15 percent of the
country is rural; and 70 percent of the population is in
suburban areas. He maintained that big cities don't control
elections currently. He said that as an example, in 2012 there
were 73 visits to Ohio by the presidential candidates. He
maintained that currently campaigns do not just visit the cities
in a state but visit everywhere. He added that the cost of
television and radio advertising drops dramatically from urban
to rural areas. He cited that media cost per vote in New York
City is 5.2 cents; in Indianapolis it is 4.0 cents; and in Fort
Smith, Arkansas it is 3.0 cents.
MR. FADEM stated that another issue commonly cited as a possible
consequence of National Popular Vote is that of a lengthy
election vote recount leading to months of uncertainty. He
maintained that would not occur because there is a federal law
that requires every state to submit a certificate of
ascertainment by "safe harbor" day, which is six days before the
Electoral College meets in December, and all states must provide
a statement of the count by that day. He attested that it was
that rule which allowed the Supreme Court to bar Florida from
performing additional recounts in the 2000 election.
4:47:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked how HB 175 would affect Alaska's
congressional representation in Congress.
MR. FADEM answered that the proposed legislation would not
affect congressional representation but only the vote for
President. He added that he is often asked, "Why don't you do
this the right way?" He explained that "the right way" is
defined by many as a federal constitutional amendment to abolish
the Electoral College. He maintained that to achieve National
Popular Vote, it is not necessary to amend the Constitution. He
asserted that the proposed legislation represents a state-based
solution for state legislatures to respect the will of the
people for National Popular Vote, and the Founding Fathers gave
the states the tools and the exclusive right to do that.
4:48:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that he likes the Electoral College:
it is good for Alaska; all states are on equal footing with two
senators; and it offers finality in elections. He opined that
the level of election activity would not change. He expressed
his view that the "winner take all" approach demonstrates "we're
all in." He questioned how the proposed legislation would be
constructive and helpful to Alaska.
MR. FADEM asserted that the proposed legislation affects only
one's representation in the presidential election. He
questioned the conclusion that Alaska has been treated well in
the Electoral College, since the Alaska voter has never been a
player in the presidential election. He maintained that under
National Popular Vote, every vote in every state would count,
and the political parties would have a greater interest in the
over 520,000 registered voters in Alaska. He said that under
the current system, the political parties have no interest in
the Alaskan vote, since the state's electoral votes are already
decided. He added that Alaska has zero influence on the
presidential election, and that is what National Popular Vote
would change.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked how the outcome of the last
presidential election would have been influenced if National
Popular Vote was in place rather than the current system.
MR. FADEM replied that he has great respect for President Donald
Trump's comment that if the National Popular Vote system had
been in place, he would have campaigned differently. He added
that President Trump did not campaign in his home state of New
York. Mr. Fadem conceded that if the National Popular Vote
system had been in place, President Trump might have received
more votes on a national popular basis. He stated that no one
could have anticipated who would have won under a National
Popular Vote, because the campaign was not conducted for that
type of election. He emphasized that he respects that President
Trump won the presidency under the rules in place at the time,
and he is the absolute justified winner in the election. He
offered that all Americans and even President Trump himself
would probably like to know if President Trump could win in 2020
under the National Popular Vote system with a 50 state campaign.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked what the result of this last election
would have been if there had been a National Popular Vote.
MR. FADEM responded that if National Popular Vote had been in
place for the last election, the electoral votes of the states
that joined the compact would have gone to the winner of the
national popular vote, who was Hillary Clinton. He reiterated
that was not the system that was in place, and there wasn't a 50
state campaign. He said that both candidates only campaigned in
12 states, so it is unknown what would have happened if they had
campaigned in all 50 states with the winner being decided by
popular vote.
4:54:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if there is a deadline for states to
adopt the compact to preserve the participation of those states
that have already adopted it.
MR. FADEM replied that there is no time limit. For the states
that have passed National Popular Vote legislation, it is now
law, but the law stipulates that it does not go into effect
until the compact goes into effect; therefore, the law has no
"shelf life."
4:55:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL suggested that if he were a presidential
candidate under National Popular Vote, he would go to large
population centers to reach large groups of people. He asked if
the intent of the Electoral College was to give rural places as
much influence as the large urban power centers.
MR. FADEM offered that when the Electoral College was
established, the country was very different; the country was
rural, and only ten percent of Americans lived in cities. He
said that the State of Massachusetts has changed how it rewards
its electoral votes 11 times in its history as a state, ending
up with National Popular Vote. He opined that the brilliance of
the founding fathers was in giving the state legislatures the
right to make the decision. He said that state legislatures
change as times, feelings, and needs change. He pointed out
that the real presidential campaigns are conducted through the
media, and there are television and radio advertisements
everywhere. He reiterated that under National Popular Vote, a
vote in Beaver, Alaska, would be equal to a vote cast in Miami,
Florida; no state or area would be "written off"; campaigns
would be conducted in urban, suburban, and rural areas.
4:59:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for confirmation that the current
Electoral College system allows the state legislatures to
determine independently the system they will be under and Mr.
Fadem is not advocating for abolishing the Electoral College.
He added that he is glad Alaska is not inundated with television
advertisements.
MR. FADEM said that the Electoral College is currently a rubber
stamp for 50 individual state votes, and under National Popular
Vote, the Electoral College would be a rubber stamp for the
national popular vote. He maintained that a number of
Republican legislators have supported National Popular Vote in
their states. He said that in Arizona, two-thirds of the
Republicans in the Arizona House of Representatives and two-
thirds of the Democrats in the House voted for National Popular
Vote. He said that a number of those Republican legislators
confirmed that they would never vote to abolish the Electoral
College for the reason Representative Wool cited: a state
legislature would not want to give up a power granted to it by
the founding fathers. He maintained that the right to determine
the system by which it awards Electoral College votes and the
right to enter interstate compacts are two of the explicit
rights given states. He offered that if there are unintended
consequences under the National Popular Vote system, then
legislatures can choose to withdraw from the compact. If the
Electoral College was abolished and the consequences proved
unpopular, it would take another constitutional amendment to
change it. He mentioned that the last amendment to the
constitution that was even close to being ratified was the Equal
Rights Amendment (ERA) initiative in the 1970s.
5:01:45 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Fadem to describe in more detail
how the campaign visits to Ohio were distributed across the
state.
MR. FADEM stated that in the 2004 presidential campaign, if John
Kerry had received 50,000 more votes in Ohio, he would have won
Ohio and thus, the presidency. He maintained that Mr. Kerry
only campaigned in the large cities, whereas President George W.
Bush campaigned in every part of the state. He attested that
the public knows how candidates would campaign in a 50 state
campaign, because it knows what happens currently in the 12
battleground states. He maintained that candidates do not
campaign just in the large cities, because large cities do not
control a state's election.
5:03:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked why, if every vote is equal, a
presidential candidate would visit Beaver, Alaska, as opposed to
a large urban center.
MR. FADEM responded that in terms of a presidential campaign, it
is not the visit but the media campaign that allows Alaskans to
hear the candidates talk about issues. He maintained that the
proposed legislation is important for the Alaska voter to know
that his/her vote counts. He said that currently it doesn't
count. He offered that under National Popular Vote, Alaska
voters would see that their votes counted and meant something.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON expressed that she felt that her vote
counted in the last election. She mentioned that the last
President to have visited Palmer was President John F. Kennedy,
who visited before he was President.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS suggested that under National Popular Vote,
presidential candidates would offer their stance on issues such
as the King Cove Road or the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
(ANWR).
5:06:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said she is convinced that if she owned a
newspaper or television station, National Popular Vote would be
advantageous. She asked why a media campaign in Alaska would be
advantageous, since issues are not really discussed in
presidential campaign television advertisements.
MR. FADEM asserted that U.S. voters do want to hear the
advertisements and do want to hear about the issues. He
maintained that the voters with whom his organization has
communicated and those supporting National Popular Vote care
passionately about the country and about the presidential
election. They feel that they are being punished because of
where they live; that geography has determined whether their
vote counts. He mentioned that National Popular Vote was one of
the first goals on the League of Women Voters (LWV) original
charter in 1920.
5:08:49 PM
MS. YORDY pointed out that there are many more resources
utilized in a presidential campaign than just radio and
television, which is especially important in Alaska. She
maintained that campaign volunteers going door-to-door is how
the presidential campaigns get feedback directly from Alaska
voters about what matters in Alaska. She maintained that it is
when every vote has the same weight on a national scale that the
campaign workers are actually interested in what the voters are
saying.
5:09:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK offered that under National Popular Vote,
the presidential candidate would be visiting Fairbanks or
Anchorage rather than Beaver. He stated that under the current
system, Alaska's issues get no attention from the candidates.
He offered that even with President George W. Bush, a
Republican-led U.S. Senate, and a Republican-led U.S. House of
Representatives, ANWR still received no attention. He
maintained that the proposed legislation is not just about the
vote, but about the overall attention to Alaska's concerns and
having its issues addressed. He suggested that the proposed
system would create a shift in how campaigns are run.
5:11:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that his concern is that Alaska's
tiny population of 750,000 would get "lost in the noise," and
the campaigns would focus on New York and California. He said
that he was happy with the election's outcome, and he is
concerned that National Popular Vote would diminish Alaska's
ability to have an impact on a presidential election.
5:13:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked how Alaska and any other states may be
affected if they don't join the compact but there are enough
other states in the compact to reach the 270-electoral vote
threshold.
MR. FADEM responded that states not joining the compact would
proceed as usual, and the block of 270 votes would be cast for
the candidate receiving the popular vote. He/she would receive
any additional votes from any other states that voted for
him/her. He emphasized that the block of 270 votes guarantees
that the candidate receiving it becomes President.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL suggested that since the 270 votes would
reflect the popular vote, the votes of a state not joining the
compact would only count in the sense that it contributes to the
popular vote.
MR. FADEM agreed and said that the popular votes are added to
the 50 state total, and for a state not in the compact, the
electoral vote goes to the candidate winning the most votes in
that state.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK speculated that because of what Mr. Fadem
just stated, more states will want to be in the compact as the
number of votes represented in the compact approaches 270.
[HB 175 was held over.]