Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
03/28/2023 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 | |
| HB135 | |
| HB1 | |
| HB37 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 135 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 140 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 37 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 1-REPEAL BALLOT MEASURE 2 VOTING CHGS
3:12:02 PM
CHAIR SHAW announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 1, "An Act relating to elections."
3:13:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE RAUSCHER, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor, introduced HB 1. He paraphrased the sponsor statement
[included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
HB1 repeals Rank Choice Voting and returns to how the
State previously ran elections. Rank Choice Voting,
which was first used in the 2022 elections, was
narrowly approved by voters in the 2020 election. That
Ballot Measure was sponsored almost entirely by money
from special interest groups outside of Alaska.
Petitions for ballot measures are only required to
gather signatures from 10% of the previous election's
total voter turnout.
The timing of the petition was such that it was first
used in the 2022 elections. Following the 2022
election cycle, there has been an enormous outcry to
repeal it. Many of the complaints were centered around
confusion, not understanding the process, not knowing
how to support their candidate in a rank choice
environment, scared to vote incorrectly and risk
hurting their candidates' chances to win, and open
primaries, also referred to as jungle primaries.
While there are other aspects to the full ballot
measure two, there are some items that should stay in
effect, and that the courts have ruled
unconstitutional if they were to be changed back.
Also, there are other portions that attempt to keep
dark money out of our election process which were
intentionally left out of this legislation, this
legislation only effects the rank choice and open
primaries part of the new law.
3:16:41 PM
RYAN MCKEE, Staff, Representative George Rauscher, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Rauscher, prime
sponsor, presented a sectional analysis of HB 1 [included in the
committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Section 1 Deletes language related to Ranked choice
voting and amends the language relating to the
appointment of election supervisors. Under amended
language a supervisor will be appointed based on the
top to votes statewide in the most recent
gubernatorial election, or they may be appointed by
the election supervisor if a member of either party is
not available.
Section 2 Amends language relating to the
appointment of election watchers. Clarifying the
process for precinct party committees when appointing
watchers.
Section 3 Modifies the appointment of members of the
Alaska Public Offices Commission, to be from the top
two vote gaining parties from the most recent
gubernatorial election. Deleting reference to
political groups.
Section 4 Deletes reference to "Political Groups" as
it relates to the APOC.
Section 5 Amends this section by deleting references
to Ranked choice voting elections.
Section 6 Amends language relating to the filing of
campaign reports, adding a new section to include
individuals who filed a nominating petition to become
a candidate. Renumbers the following sections.
Section 7 Amends the statute reference to reelect
changes made in bill.
Section 8 Modifies the definition of "contributions"
to not include mailings describing the political
party's slate of candidates.
Section 9 Deletes language relating to Ranked choice
voting and amends the section requiring ballots to
include the political party of candidates.
Section 10 Deletes language relating to Ranked
choice voting. Adds a new section relating to the
counting of votes and renumbers the following
sections.
Section 11 Deletes reference to ranked choice voting
in the certification of ballot counts.
Section 12 Amends language to reflect context of
bill.
Section 13 Amends language for Absentee voting.
Clarifying that only the voter of the voter's designee
may mark the absentee ballot application.
Section 14 Amends language to include special runoff
elections.
Section 15 - Deletes language related to ranked choice
voting and amends the language relating to the
appointment of the District Counting Board. Under
amended language a board member will be appointed
based on the top to votes statewide in the most recent
gubernatorial election.
Sections 16 - 21 - Amends language to include special
runoff elections.
Section 22 Amends language to include the
traditional primary election and deletes references to
"Ranked choice voting."
Section 23 Inserts a new section relating to the
Participation in primary election selection of a
political party's candidates.
Section 24 Deletes reference to ranked choice voting
and requires the inclusion of the name of the
political party affiliation of each candidate.
Section 25 Adds a new section addressing how a party
may nominate a new candidate should an incumbent
become disqualified, incapacitated, or dies.
Section 26 This section is repealed and reenacted to
establish the preparation and distribution of ballots
minus language for ranked choice voting.
Section 27 This section is repealed and reenacted to
establish how nominees are placed on the general
election ballot.
Section 28 Amends the section requiring the director
of elections to include the full name and political
party of a candidate on the general election ballot.
Section 29 Amended to require that both a write-in
candidate for Governor and Lt. Governor to be of the
same political party or group.
Section 30 Adds new sections establishing the
process for filling vacancies by party petition if a
candidate dies, withdraws, resigns, or becomes
disqualified from holding office.
Section 31 Adds new sections to Article 2,
establishing the process for nominating no-party
candidates for political office. Including the
requirements for filing petitions, form of the
petition, and the required number of signatures for
both statewide and district-wide offices.
Section 32 Deletes reference to ranked choice voting
from the sections.
Section 33 Deletes language relating to ranked
choice voting and makes conforming amendments to the
bill.
Section 34 Adds a new section establishing the
procedures for calling a special election or a special
runoff election.
Section 35 - Adds a new section establishing the
procedures for calling a special with primary.
Section 36 Amends the requirements for the governor
issuing a proclamation for a special runoff election.
Section 37 and 38 Makes conforming changes to allow
for special runoff elections for US Senator the US
Representative.
Section 39 Amends the section by adding the required
percentage of qualified voters for a noparty
candidates to appear on general election ballot.
Section 40 Adds new sections establishing
requirements for party petition and selections of
party nominees.
Section 41 Makes conforming Amendments to the
provisions for conduction of special elections and
special runoff elections.
Section 42 Makes conforming amendments to the
conditions and time of callings special elections and
special runoff elections.
Section 43 - Makes conforming amendments to the
conditions holding special elections and special
runoff elections.
Section 44 Makes conforming amendments to the
Proclamation of a special elections by the governor.
Section 45 Makes conforming amendments to the
petition requirements of a no-party candidate for a
special election.
Section 46 Adds a new section establishing the
requirements of party petition and selections of party
nominations for a special election.
Section 47 Makes conforming amendments to the
general provisions for conductions special elections.
Section 48 Makes conforming amendments to the
qualifications and confirmations of an appointee to
the state legislature following an appointment to
office.
Section 49 Deletes language relating to ranked
choice voting as it relates to filling a vacancy or a
part-term Senate appointee or special election.
Section 50 and 51 Makes conforming amendments
relating to the date and proclamation of special
elections to fill a vacant state Senate seat.
Section 52 - Makes conforming amendments to the
petition requirements of a no-party candidate for a
special election to fill a vacant state Senate seat.
Section 53 - Adds a new section establishing the
requirements of party petition and selections of party
nominations for a special election to fill a vacant
state senate seat.
Section 54 - Makes conforming amendments to the
general provisions for conductions special elections
to fill a vacant state senate seat.
Sections 55 and 56 Make conforming amendments to
sections relating to placing propositions on the
ballot.
Sections 57, 58 and 59 Make conforming amendments to
sections relating to the publication of official
election pamphlets.
Section 60 Makes conforming amendments to the
definition of a federal election and deletes language
relating to ranked choice voting.
Section 61 Makes conforming amendment to the public
office financial disclosure report.
Section 62 Repeals statutes relating to ranked
choice voting.
3:24:11 PM
CHAIR SHAW invited questions from members of the committee.
3:24:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether the bill would return
Alaska Statutes to their existence prior to the passage of
Ballot Measure 2 [2020].
MR. MCKEE answered yes.
3:25:35 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
3:27:04 PM
JULI LUCKY, Executive Director, Alaskans for Better Elections,
clarified that although she was providing invited testimony,
Alaskans for Better Elections was opposed to HB 1. She directed
attention to a PowerPoint presentation [included in the
committee packet] and proceeded to outline the benefits of
ranked choice voting (RCV) on slides 2-3, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
• Fewer barriers to entry for citizen legislature.
• Increases competition in the general election, where
more voters participate.
• Gives all voters a voice in selecting candidates.
• A candidate needs broad support to win.
ü Encourages candidates to talk to a larger
percentage of their constituency.
ü Elects representatives that are more
accountable to their constituents.
• Allows candidates with similar ideologies to compete
in the same election without splitting the vote and
letting a less popular candidate win with a plurality.
ü Allows Alaskans to vote their heart without
fear of contributing to their least favorite
candidate getting elected.
ü More choice for voters at the higher turnout
general election.
ü Government reflects the electorate.
3:31:33 PM
MS. LUCKY discussed what changed in 2022 on slides 4, which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
All statewide elections now follow the same, two-step
process:
STEP 1: Nonpartisan/Open Primary.
• All candidates appear on the same ballot; all voters
get to choose among all candidates; top four vote-
getters move to General.
• Unaffiliated voters don't have to choose a ballot
and limit their choices 58% of Alaskans are not
affiliated with a party.
• The most competitive candidates advance.
3:32:01 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
3:32:49 PM
MS. LUCKY resumed the presentation on slide 4 and continued to
discuss the changes in 2022 on slide 5, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
STEP 2: Ranked Choice Voting General Election.
• Voters rank candidates in order of preference.
• If a candidate receives a majority (50%+1 vote) of
first-choice votes, they win.
• If not, the candidate with the fewest votes is
eliminated and voters who ranked that candidate as
their 1st choice have their vote counted for their
next choice.
• This process continues until two candidates are left
and the one with the most votes wins.
3:34:09 PM
MS. LUCKY proceeded to slide 6, titled "Alaskans Understand
RCV," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
In the first RCV election in August:
• 99.83% of ballots were correctly filled out.
• 73% of voters ranked at least two candidates.
In the November election:
• Statewide average, 99.94% of ballots were correctly
filled out.
• Voters were more likely to rank:
ü In competitive races;
ü In races with multiple candidates; and
ü When their first choice wasn't favored to win.
3:35:18 PM
MS. LUCKY advanced to slide 7, titled "2022 Alaska Elections
Successes," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
• RCV didn't favor one party over another: in the
three statewide races, incumbents were favored but the
winners represented different points on the political
spectrum.
• More choice for voters: larger, more diverse
candidate pool
• Vote-splitting was prevented and candidates had
majority support: The three "come from behind"
victories show that the system works.
• Alaskan voters are complex and independent. The
system allows them to express that.
3:37:14 PM
CHAIR SHAW invited questions from members of the committee.
3:37:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER inquired about the suggestion that
"ballots were easy to understand" and asked whether there was
data to support that statement.
MS. LUCKY reported that over 99 percent of the ballots in one
election and 98 percent of the ballots in the other election
were filled out correctly. Furthermore, a majority of Alaskans
reported that RCV was "simple" in the exit polling conducted
after both the August and November elections. She offered to
follow up with the requested data.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked how Alaskans for Better Elections
defined "filled out correctly."
MS. LUCKY said a ballot that had been filled out with no error
was considered "filled out correctly."
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER shared that RCV was a complex subject
to communicate to his constituents. He asked how many races
were impacted by the voters who decided against ranking the
candidates, meaning they only cast a vote for the first round.
MS. LUCKY offered to follow up with the requested data. She
explained that in every race, some voters chose to express their
preference for one candidate only.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER shared his understanding that in the
RCV system, a ballot was "exhausted" when the voter selects only
one candidate. He asked how many races were impacted by
exhausted ballots.
MS. LUCKY offered to follow up with the requested information.
3:43:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked how many people selected the same
candidate for each round.
MS. LUKCY said that would be considered a "spoiled" ballot
also termed an "over vote." She reported that there were 342
"over votes" in the August election.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD inquired about the source of Ms. Lucky's
data.
MS. LUKCY said the data came directly from the Division of
Elections (DOE).
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked how many ballots were filled out
incorrectly in both the August and November elections.
MS. LUCKY offered to follow up with the requested information.
She estimated that roughly 7,000 unwitnessed ballots were thrown
out.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD asked what election Ms. Lucky was
referring to.
MS. LUCKY said she was referencing the 2022 election cycle when
RCV was in effect. She offered to follow up with the requested
information.
3:46:21 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
3:47:01 PM
KELLY TSHIBAKA, Preserve Democracy, directed attention to a
PowerPoint presentation [included in the committee packet],
outlining the threat of RCV on page 2, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Ranked-Choice Voting is an emerging threat to our
election system. It causes:
VOTER SUPPRESSION
INCREASED NEGATIVITY AND COSTS IN CAMPAIGNS
DISTRUST IN THE ELECTION SYSTEM
RISK TO THE DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY OF ELECTION OUTCOMES
INCREASED VULNERABILITY TO DARK MONEY
FEWER CANDIDATE CHOICES
MORE EXTREME CANDIDATES BEING ELECTED
3:47:43 PM
MS. TSHIBAKA continued to slide 3, titled Alaska's Record Low
Voter Turnout," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Lowest voter turnout in state history occurred the
year Alaska introduced RankedChoice Voting (RCV).
Turnout was 44.4%, down from 49.8% in 2018 and 56.08%
in 2014. That is 18,000 less voters than in 2018 and
2014.
Even fewer voters participated in the US Senate and
House races. Only 40% voted in the federal racesa 10%
drop from 2018.
3:48:09 PM
MS. TSHIBAKA discussed a graph on slide 4, showing Alaska voter
turnout by year. She shared her understanding that in 2022,
Alaska had record low voter turnout at 44.4 percent. She noted
that Alaska was the anomaly in comparison to the rest of the
U.S., which saw some of the highest voter turnout in history in
2022.
3:49:51 PM
MS. TSHIBAKA proceeded to slide 5, titled "ACLU Testimony
Ranked Choice Voting," which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
"Ranked choice ballots have suppressed voter turnout
(RCV) has resulted in decreased turnouts up to 8% in
non-presidential elections. RCV exacerbates economic
and racial disparities in voting. Voting errors and
spoiled ballots occur far more often. In Minneapolis,
for example, nearly 10% of ranked choice ballots were
not counted, most of these in low-income communities
of color."
--Testimony of Vignesh Ganapathy Kansas Policy
Director
3:50:26 PM
MS. TSHIBAKA shared quotes from the New York Post and The
Amsterdam News on slide 6. She referenced Maine's U.S. Senate
race on slide 7, stating that RCV created increased negativity
and costs. She discussed a case study on Alameda Country on
slide 8, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
• The certified 3rd place candidate was declared the
actual winner
• After the election was certified, the Registrar of
Voters learned its RCV system was not configured
properly by FairVote, a special-interest funded
organization that has advocated for the spread of RCV
for decades
FairVote came into Alameda County, reprogrammed the
RCV system, and the election results were re-run,
producing a different outcome
• Led to a recount of every RCV race in the county
• "It really feeds into the distrust so many people
have in our election system when this sort of thing
happens." Jim Ross, SF Chronicle, 12/28/22
3:51:14 PM
MS. TSHIBAKA directed attention to slide 9, titled "Ranked-
Choice Voting: Ballots Tossed & Winners Get Less Than 50%,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
MYTH Lower ranked candidates are redistributed until a
candidate with 50% or more of the vote wins.
FACT In 4 jurisdictions using Ranked-Choice Voting,
none of the final winners received 46% of the total
vote share because over 27% of the ballots originally
cast were thrown out as the RCV rounds progressed.
Nov. 18, 2014
THE STUDY CONCLUDED: RCV increases the difficulty of
the task facing voters. A substantial number of voters
either cannot or choose not to rank multiple
candidates. Even individuals who mark three distinct
choices often face the prospect of exhaustion, so
education alone will not fix the problem. The
possibility that exhaustion might tip the balance in
the final round poses a serious risk to the democratic
legitimacy of the method and the outcomes it produces.
3:55:03 PM
MS. TSHIBAKA proceeded to slide 10, titled "Ranked Choice Voting
Caters to Dark Money," which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
In 2022, 75 candidates ran for 3 state-wide offices in
Alaska.
With Alaska's RCV-related open primary system, the
burden was on each voter to research every candidate's
background and platform to make an informed decision
an impossible task.
So, the candidates (incumbents) with the most money
(and dark money) had the greatest advantage? and won
in all 3 races.
3:56:00 PM
MS. TSHIBAKA continued to slide 11, titled "Ranked-Choice Voting
Limits Choices," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
In 2020, 6 third-party candidates were on the general
election ballot for federal offices in Alaska (not
including Al Gross, candidate for US Senate, who ran
as an Independent but was on the ballot as a
Democrat).
In 2022, only 1 third-party candidate was able to make
it through Alaska's new RCV-related open primary
system to the general election for a federal office.
RCV significantly limited the ability of Independents,
Libertarians, Alaska Independent Party, and other 3rd
party candidates from making it to the general
election.
3:57:18 PM
MS. TSHIBAKA directed attention to slide 12, titled "Ranked-
Choice Voting Eliminates Moderates," which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
In Alaska's 2022 U.S. House race, Democrats forced out
a moderate Independent candidate, Al Gross, who
previously ran as the Democrat candidate for U.S.
Senate in 2000. This left only one remaining Democrat
in the final 4 general election, Mary Peltola, who
held far more extreme political views than Al Gross.
Similarly, a moderate Alaska Native Republican dropped
out of the final 4 in the U.S. House race after
determining she had no path to victory to win the
election. A less moderate candidate took the fourth
spot on the ballot.
3:58:10 PM
MS. TSHIBAKA highlighted bi-partisan opposition to RCV on slide
13. On slide 14, she listed three states that were banning RCV:
Tennessee, Florida, and South Dakota. She proceeded to slide
15, titled "Alaskans Want to Repeal RCV," which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
53% OF ALASKANS WANT RCV REPEALED
Alaska Survey Research Poll by Ivan Moore January 2023
• Poll of 1,397 registered Alaskan voters shortly
after 2022 election
• "Everyone who follows me here on [Twitter] knows
that I am a huge supporter of RCV, but these numbers
show the reality. The original passage of RCV was by a
very narrow margin and any idea that 'once we have an
RCV election, everyone will love it' is NOT the case."
Ivan Moore
4:00:08 PM
MS. TSHIBAKA concluded on slide 16, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Passing H.B.1 Will Prevent
VOTER SUPPRESSION
INCREASED NEGATIVITY AND COSTS IN CAMPAIGNS
DISTRUST IN THE ELECTION SYSTEM
RISK TO THE DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY OF ELECTION OUTCOMES
INCREASED VULNERABILITY TO DARK MONEY
FEWER CANDIDATE CHOICES
MORE EXTREME CANDIDATES FROM BEING ELECTED
CHAIR SHAW invited questions from members of the committee.
4:00:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG referred to slide 10, which suggested
that RCV catered to dark money, indicating that candidates with
the most money had a greater advantage. She pointed out that
U.S. Representative Mary Peltola was outspent 10:1 in the
general election with zero independent support. She reported
that Sarah Palin and Nick Begich had significantly more outside
support from the National Republican Congressional Committee
(NRCC) and Rand Paul's Super PAC. She asked where Ms. Tshibaka
sourced her data from. Additionally, she asked Ms. Tshibaka to
enumerate how U.S. Representative Peltola was a far more extreme
candidate than Al Gross.
MS. TSHIBAKA shared her understanding that in the general
election, U.S. Senator Peltola spent approximately $6 million
with up to $10 million in personal expenditures, whereas both
Sarah Palin and Nick Begich had approximately $1 million in
their campaigns. Further, she reported that the NRCC did not
endorse either Nick Begich and Sarah Palin in the general
election, nor support them in a big financial way. In regard to
extreme policy views, she stated "Some of those are in things
like the votes were seeing now, where Mary Peltola voted ? for
abortion of a child who's on a patient table separate from their
mother after birth."
4:02:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER expressed concern about the argument
that the two-party system was the problem and that RCV was
needed to level the playing field. He asked which organizations
supported candidates who weren't affiliated with a legal
political party within the state of Alaska.
MS. TSHIBAKA said she was aware of activist groups,
environmentalist groups, and special interest groups that were
unaffiliated and supporting candidates in 2022.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked which organizations were
supporting Ballot Measure 2.
MS. TSHIBAKA shared her understanding that the organizations
were listed on the Ballot Measure 2 website. She added that the
three major groups were from the Lower 48 and tended to lean to
the left politically.
4:04:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked which states were utilizing RCV.
MS. TSHIBAKA responded that 31 states had used RCV in some form
or another. She offered to provide that list to the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY inquired about the data on voter turnout.
She referenced an article by the Pew Research Center that found
voting turnout to be down nationwide. She asked how Alaska's
voter turnout compared to national rates.
MS. TSHIBAKA cited a study out of Harvard [University] that
showed a collective increase in nationwide voting except in
states with tossup seats or contentious races.
4:07:29 PM
PHILLIP IZON, Alaskans for Honest Elections, discussed RCV,
opining that it was not better, faster, cheaper, nor did it
increase voter turnout. He acknowledged the low voter turnout
in Alaska, reporting that 2022 was the lowest turnout by
percentage in the state's history. He shared his understanding
that $6.1 million came from outside Alaska to fund Alaskans for
Better Elections, adding that organization only raised $20,000
in state funds. He discussed RCV in the Lower 48, citing
various races. He argued that third parties lacked
representation in the RCV system. He opined that Democrats
"gamed" the RCV system to block Ms. Tshibaka from winning the
election. He characterized RCV as a failed system, adding that
Alaskans for Better Elections changed its entire marketing
campaign to target the open primary, as opposed to RCV, due to
its unpopularity in Alaska.
4:17:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG pointed out that every single quote and
instance referenced by Mr. Izon was from the Lower 48. She
inquired about the relevancy of outsiders commenting on RCV;
further, she requested examples of such occurrences in Alaska.
Citing data from the Division of Elections (DOE), she reported
that if every single exhausted ballot had been completed, it
would not have changed the outcome of the race, noting that Ms.
Tshibaka would have still lost by a significant margin.
MR. ISON said he used the examples to avoid "rehashing" the
points presented by Ms. Tshibaka, adding that Alaskans were not
alone in their experience. He shared a personal anecdote and
discussed the difficulties and complexities of the RCV system.
He relayed that many individuals across the country had been
harmed by the system.
4:22:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG addressed the argument that the 5.4
percent drop in voter turnout from 2018 to 2022 was due to RCV;
however, from 2014 to 2018, voter turnout dropped by 6.24
percent. She remarked, "It's very convenient to make causation
and play with data." She urged people to carefully consider the
numbers, adding that she was attempting to correct the
misinformation that had been provided on the record.
4:23:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD stated that RCV had failed many people,
adding that many people had complained about the system. She
urged members not to make accusations against fellow
legislators.
CHAIR SHAW invited closing comments from the bill sponsor.
4:24:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER acknowledged that there was a low
decline in voting turnout; however, he recalled that RCV was
promoted as a tool to increase voter turnout, which it failed to
do.
4:24:46 PM
CHAIR SHAW announced that HB 1 bill would be held over.