Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
05/02/2023 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 | |
| HB4 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 4-ELECTIONS: REPEAL RANKED CHOICE VOTING
3:08:28 PM
CHAIR SHAW announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 4, "An Act relating to elections."
3:09:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH VANCE, Alaska State Legislature, introduced
HB 4, as the prime sponsor. She paraphrased the sponsor
statement [included in the committee packet], which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
House Bill 4 repeals rank choice voting and open
primaries, returning the election process to the way
Alaskans voted prior to Ballot Measure 2 of 2020
except for areas in statute the courts have found
unconstitutional. This bill attempts to remedy the
constitutional issues by providing for combined open
primaries and omitting the requirement that party
nominees be registered as a member of that party.
The ballot measure that transformed Alaska's election
system in 2020 passed by a narrow margin of less than
1 percent. The campaign led Alaskans to believe the
ballot measure would do away with "dark money" only
and that it would give them "more options" in voting.
Most Alaskan's did not know that it would upend our
way of voting that has always been one person equals
one vote. Many voters have expressed buyer's remorse
since passage. In fact, recent polling shows that that
majority of Alaskans strongly agree to repeal rank
choice voting.
This bill allows combined open primaries when two
parties request jointly, and implements court
decisions in State v. Democratic Party, from 2018
holding that requirement that candidates register with
a party when seeking party nomination violates
parties' free speech associational rights and State v.
Green Party of Alaska in 2005 holding that prohibition
on parties combining primary ballots under the system
established in AS 15.25.010, 15.25.014, and 15.25.060
is unconstitutional.
House Bill 4 seeks to implement the will of Alaskans
by returning us to the historical and trusted election
process where one person equals one vote.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE reported that one in eight rural Alaskans'
ballots were rejected in the special congressional primary of
2022 with up to 17 percent of ballots being rejected due to a
lack of signature or identifier. She opined that ranked choice
voting (RCV) added more complication to an already
disenfranchised voting population. She said studies had shown
that jurisdictions with higher proportions of older voters were
more likely to report ballot marking mistakes, increasing the
potential for a rejected ballot. Furthermore, Fair Vote, a
proponent of RCV, found that the prevalence of ranking three
candidates was lowest among African Americans, Latinos, voters
with less education, and those whose first language was not
English, she added. She purported that RCV had failed to
increase voter turnout or provide more options to voters as
promised. Instead, it increased voter confusion and
disenfranchisement that caused the lowest voter turnout in
decades, she said. She urged the legislature to return to the
trusted process of "one person equals one vote." She concluded
by sharing a quote from the report, titled "A False Majority,"
by the Maine Heritage Policy Center [included in the committee
packet].
CHAIR SHAW sought questions from committee members.
3:17:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG questioned the differences between HB 4
and HB 1.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said there was one small difference on page
33 of the bill. She deferred to her staff, Mr. Almeida.
3:17:29 PM
JAKE ALMEIDA, Staff, Representative Sarah Vance, on behalf of
Representative Vance, prime sponsor of HB 4, referenced the
repealer section of the bill, Section 62. He indicated that AS
15.13.070(g) was being enacted in HB 4, whereas the statute was
excluded from HB 1.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG asked whether HB 1 was being "pulled"
by the bill sponsor. She pointed out that HB 1 had also been
heard in committee, which shared many of the same talking
points, and asked why two identical bills were being heard by
the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE stated that both of the bills were pre-
filed, adding that she and Representative Rauscher, [prime
sponsor of HB 1], decided to "see which one rose to the top."
She explained that the specific repealer that was included HB 4
and excluded from HB 1 concerned campaign contributions for
joint governor and lieutenant governor races.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG questioned why the chair decided to
hear HB 4, as opposed to amending HB 1.
3:19:32 PM
CHAIR SHAW opened invited testimony.
3:20:00 PM
JULI LUCKY, Executive Director, Alaskans for Better Elections,
gave invited testimony in opposition to HB 4. She said the core
principles of reform were empowering voters to choose their
representatives, remove barriers for candidates to run for
office, and requiring candidates to have majority support to
win. She conveyed that in addition to representing their
values, voters desired legislators who would work together
regardless of party affiliation to solve the problems that face
Alaska. Voters wanted competition for their vote and the
freedom to support their favorite candidate without splitting
the vote and contributing to their least favorite candidate.
Further, voters wanted to empower legislators to work on their
behalf and make tough decisions in the best interest of their
communities, she reported. She said the current election system
prioritizes those values: voter choice, competition, and
accountability. She conveyed that the nonpartisan primary
reduces barriers to entry and allows a more diverse candidate
pool to run, adding that it put all candidates and voters on an
even playing field. She reported that competition was increased
by having the top four vote getters, regardless of party
affiliation, advance to the general election. She noted that
while competition was good for democracy, having more candidates
to choose from could lead to a spoiler effect. She purported
that the three come-from-behind races in Alaska's November
election demonstrated how the RCV system allowed for more
competition while removing the spoiler effect. She added that
requiring candidates to earn broad support directly from their
constituents increases accountability and rewards legislators
who put their constituents first. She stated that Alaskans for
Better Elections supported reinstating reasonable campaign
contribution limits and opposed the repeal of AS 15.13.070(g) in
Section 62 of the bill. For those reasons, she stated her
opposition to the proposed legislation.
3:23:19 PM
NICK MURRAY, Director of Policy, Maine Policy Institute, gave
invited testimony in support of HB 4. He reported that Maine
Policy Institute had studied RCV since it was passed in 2016 and
advised policy groups across the nation. He opined that
repealing RCV would save Alaskans an "immense headache" over
time. He stated that election data and academic analysis showed
that more voters were disenfranchised under RCV in comparison to
simple plurality voting. He stated that opposition to RCV
across the nation and across the political spectrum was
primarily due to exhausted or discarded ballots. He cited a
report submitted by Nolan McCarty, a professor of politics and
public affairs at Princeton University, which included data from
98 RCV races. He reported that 11 percent of ballots were
discarded on average in RCV elections, which decreased voter
confidence in the election system. The report found that a
higher rate of exhausted ballots correlated to electorates with
more senior citizen populations and non-college educated voters;
additionally, 60 percent of the RCV races had less than 50
percent of the votes cast for that office. He cited academic
research out of San Francisco that found minority, elderly, and
less educated voters to be disenfranchised by the RCV system;
further, that it increased disparities in turnout. The research
suggested that the higher complexity of RCV presented barriers
to participants that decreased turnout and raised the
probability of errors. In closing, he stated that RCV resulted
in more exhausted ballots and, therefore, less participation due
to the complexity of the system.
3:29:42 PM
CHAIR SHAW opened public testimony on HB 4.
3:30:43 PM
KRISTY KISSINGER-TOTTEN, Representing Self, testified in
opposition to HB 4 and expressed her support for RCV and open
primaries. She said RCV gave voice to the people and helped
them elect leaders with the strongest support; further, RCV
allowed multiple candidates from one party to run. She stated
that RCV helped restrict undue influence from powerful party
politics and put candidates on an equal platform, while removing
the fear of a third candidate splitting the vote. She opined
that HB 4 was an attempt to subvert the will of the people,
emphasizing that RCV must remain.
3:32:45 PM
CRYSTAL JOHNSTON, Representing Self, testified in opposition to
HB 4. She likened RCV to buying candy from a store, indicating
that more options, like candidates, was better. She reiterated
her support for RCV.
3:33:51 PM
CLAUDIA CRISS, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB
4. She opined that the 2022 [midterm] election outcome would
have been different had RCV not been instated. She said she
opposed closed primaries, as it allowed committees of people to
select candidates based on political affiliation.
3:34:42 PM
JAMES CRISS, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB 4,
expressing support for RCV. He reported that Alaska had the
highest percentage of unaffiliated and nonpartisan voters of any
state with 57.7 percent of registered voters identifying as
such. He stated that that RCV gave the majority of Alaskan
voters a choice in who represents them. He opined that RCV was
straight forward, easy to understand, and offered a meaningful
way to participate in government.
3:36:09 PM
GEORGE WOODS, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB
4. He opined that RCV represented the will of people, adding
that its use would become more accepted as it grew more
familiar. He suggested that the repeal effort was motivated by
candidates who would blame the voting system rather than their
own lack of appeal. He shared his belief that it was laudable
that Alaska was leading the way in this "experiment in
Democracy."
3:37:23 PM
JAN CAROLYN HARDY, State President, American Federation of
State, County, and Municipal Employees, testified in opposition
to HB 4. She read the following prepared remarks:
In 2020 Citizens of the State of Alaska voted on a
Citizens' Initiative to change our system of election
from party-based ballots to Rank Choice Voting (RCV.)
The Alaska Legislature is convened to represent the
Will of the People and to enact legislation to benefit
all Alaskans.
HB 4 seeks to recant the Will of the People in favor
of the discontents in and out of power. HB 4 has been
introduced to appease the discontents who did not win
the most recent State and Federal elections and those
who are fearful that RCV will lift the thumb on 'fair
and free' elections. Those who support HB 4 and other
similar legislation designed to curtail Democracy
would do better to earn their keep by presenting
policies created to benefit the People of Alaska and
not by building an insulating fortress around
themselves.
HB 4 is a bad bill. It is an undemocratic bill. How
dare the authors of this inflammatory legislation
elevate themselves above the Will of the People!
3:39:11 PM
BILL WISE, Representing Self, testified in support of HB 4. He
highlighted the public's distrust in the electoral process and
urged support for HB 4 to renew integrity in the system and
remove "opaqueness."
3:41:25 PM
MUKHYA KHALSA, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB
4. She stated her support for RCV, adding that it was the first
time she felt her vote truly counted. She explained that RCV
allowed her to vote for the candidate she wanted to win.
3:43:06 PM
HARI DEV SINGH KHALSA, Representing Self, testified in
opposition to HB 4, characterizing the bill as voter
suppression. He pointed out that a majority of Alaskans voted
for RCV.
3:44:38 PM
ROBERT WELTON, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB
4. He pointed out that a majority of Alaskans voted for RCV and
open primaries in the 2020 election; further, he opined that
Make American Great Again (MAGA) extremists were attempting to
repeal it with the proposed legislation, which he described as a
"bad" bill. He believed that RCV was working, demonstrated by
the election of moderates who could "reach across the aisle" in
in U.S. Representative Mary Peltola and U.S. Senator Lisa
Murkowski. Furthermore, he opined that RCV made the state
legislature a more functional body, citing Senator Giessel's
reelection. He emphasized that repealing RCV behind the "closed
doors" of the legislature was the wrong way to fix the problem.
3:46:55 PM
EMILY KANE, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB 4,
adding that she found great value in RCV. She pointed out that
Alaskans voted to engage in open primaries and RCV in 2020. She
said she found it disingenuous to repeal those laws, which were
created by a popular vote to make campaigning more civil and to
elect leaders that were more representative of the population.
She pointed out that the overwhelming majority of those in favor
of RCV included the independent and undeclared voters, in
addition to the younger demographic who would be leading society
in the years ahead. She referenced the language on page 12,
lines 12-31 of the bill, indicating that open primaries would be
abolished should HB 4 pass. She stated that voting for a
political party, as opposed to voting for a person, undermined
the responsibilities and the credibility of the candidates while
forcing voters to choose an ideology.
3:49:29 PM
JAMES ALDRIDGE, Representing Self, testified in "adamant"
opposition to HB 4. He contended that the numbers shared by the
bill sponsor were "fluff," claiming that 99.8 percent of voters
were correctly filled out. He emphasized that the majority of
Alaskans voted for RCV, and for that reason, it should not be
abandoned.
3:50:40 PM
THERESE LEWANDOWSKI, Representing Self, testified in opposition
to HB 4. She read the following written remarks [included in
the committee packet]:
I am against this bill.
Open Primaries provide Alaskan citizens of all or no
political affiliation to vote their choice based on
the candidate's qualifications and not on their
political party. It eliminates multiple ballots which
is always confusing for the voter.
Ranked Choice Voting allows a similar choice - to vote
for the candidate, the person. It encourages voters to
ask questions and research the candidate and not rely
on a political party to think for them. It then allows
a voter to choose 4, if they wish, and rank them in
order of preference!
How often I have wished I could do that election after
election.
This gives the voter much more say in electing our
politicians. And it makes candidates prove up on why
they are running and what they can actually offer
citizens of this state.
Lastly - the majority voted this into statute in 2020.
Legislators repealing it through a bill is like taking
their voting power away from them.
3:52:23 PM
JOE NELSON, Chairman, Sealaska, testified in opposition to HB 4,
explaining that RCV was initiated to remedy the partisan issues
across the country. He opined that RCV was working. He stated
that Native folks' [political] affiliation fell all across the
spectrum, expressing his hope that "common sense would prevail"
and that all voices would be heard.
3:54:17 PM
PAT RACE, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB 4.
He informed the committee that he was a volunteer board member
for Alaskans for better Elections. He discussed party
representation, indicating that the because the majority of
legislators were members of either the democratic or republican
party, they were not representative of most Alaskans. He
believed it would be wrong to repeal RCV so soon after Alaskans
voted on the issue and argued that there was no need to rush
this issue. He encouraged the legislature to set HB 4 aside in
exchange for real problems in the state.
3:56:47 PM
SALLY GATES, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB 4.
She pointed out that the majority of Alaskan voters voted for
RCV in 2020, adding that now, less than three years later,
members of this legislature were trying to cast aside the will
of Alaskan voters, which she characterized as anti-democratic.
She noted that she, along with many Alaskans, were not
affiliated with one particular party. She said closing
primaries and eliminating RCV drastically reduced the options
for voters. She encouraged legislators to vote "no" on the
bill.
3:58:07 PM
MICKEY BARKER, Representing Self, testified in support of HB 4.
He recalled that a slim majority of Alaskans voted for RCV,
adding that outside money pushed propaganda and promoted lies in
regard to RCV. He discussed the disenfranchisement of voters
and numerous ballots that were thrown out.
4:00:06 PM
DONNA GOLDSMITH, Representing Self, testified in opposition to
HB 4. She conveyed that in 2020, over half of registered voters
voted for Ballot Measure 2, which allowed every vote to count
regardless of political affiliation. She urged the legislature
to listen to the will of the people who wanted to change a
system that was not inclusive of a variety of political
affiliations and values. She indicated that the repeal of RCV
would disempower Alaskans' vote. She encouraged a "no" vote on
HB 4.
4:02:28 PM
DAVID KASSER, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB
4. He stated that RCV allowed moderate ideologies to shine
through and required voters to understand the complexities of
each candidate, which made for better, more informed voters. He
urged the committee to "kill" HB 4.
4:03:38 PM
ODETTE EDGAR, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB
4. She summarized her experience with RCV, noting that the
ballot box machines rejected erroneous ballots and allowed
voters to fix it on the spot. She emphasized her trust in the
election system.
4:06:03 PM
LAURA STATS, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB 4.
She urged the committee to postpone or reconsider taking action
on RCV so soon after it was voted in by the citizenry to allow
more time for people to learn the process. She opined that it
was too soon to "kibosh" the will of the people. She said she
voted for RCV to move away from extremism, which was "tearing
the fabric of the nation apart."
4:08:04 PM
PATTY ITCHOAK, Representing Self, testified in support of HB 4.
She opined that only one candidate from each political party
should be on the ballot. RCV essentially dilutes the vote
count, she said, which discouraged her from voting in the
future. She referenced the low voter turnout in the [2020]
election. She reiterated her support for the repeal of RCV.
4:09:22 PM
ZACHARY MACINTYRE, Representing Self, testified in opposition to
HB 4. He explained that he, like many Alaskans, never fit into
one established political box. He stated that RCV allowed him
to vote outside those boxes, adding that it was the strongest
defense against extremism.
4:11:10 PM
MARK DESINGER, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB
4. He explained that RCV produces a winner with the most
support across the entire electorate. RCV reduces exhausted
votes, he said, adding that even if his first-choice candidate
may not have won, all of his votes counted. He continued to
explain that RCV allowed him to vote for, rather than against, a
candidate, and allowed him to vote his preference rather than
vote for someone who would be the most electable. He stated
that RCV would lessen the cost to the state, as it would
eliminate the need for run-off elections.
4:13:49 PM
JEFFREY BARNHART, Representing Self, testified in support of HB
4. He opined that Ballot Measure 2, which combined the
establishment of an RCV system and the elimination of dark
money, was an attempt to deliberately fool or mislead voters.
He shared his belief that most voters were voting on the
initiative to eliminate dark money rather than RCV. He stated
that many Alaskan voters were disenfranchised by the RCV system,
which he described as confusing and unfair. He encouraged a
return to the traditional voting system.
4:15:39 PM
JANET MORRISON, Representing Self, testified in support of HB 4.
She shared that in her experience as a poll worker, people were
confused by RCV. She questioned what happened to mistaken
question ballots, absentee ballots, and absentee in-person
ballots. She shared a personal anecdote.
4:17:43 PM
JAMES HARPRING, Representing Self, testified in support of HB 4.
He asserted that that RCV initiative was funded with out-of-
state "black money." He stated his support for the repeal of
RCV and a return to the traditional voting system.
4:19:56 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:19 p.m. to 4:21 p.m.
4:21:21 PM
CATHERINE MCCARTHY, Representing Self, testified in opposition
to HB 4. She said she felt liberated by RCV, as she was no
longer "forced" to deal with a closed primary system. She urged
the committee to oppose the proposed legislation.
4:23:10 PM
JUNE ROTHMAN, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB
4. He thanked the DOE staff for implementing RCV and launching
a "tremendous" educational campaign. He said he took exception
to the implication that Alaskans were less capable than
Australians or Irish who had been using RCV successfully for
many decades. He believed that RCV was a tremendous asset for
the state. He asked the legislature not to abandon RCV or to
discount the lessons that had yet to be learned.
4:25:44 PM
COLLEEN FORD, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB
4. She stated that RCV and open primaries must be preserved, as
they allow independence from the two major political parties.
She opined that Alaskans never fit comfortably within the two-
party system and shared her belief that the repeal of RCV would
bring the state back to "political colonization."
4:26:38 PM
MIKE MILLIGAN, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB
4. He expressed his support for RCV because it gave him more
power as a voter, at the expense of political parties, which he
likened to limited liability corporations. He opined that the
bill would return power to the political parties. He asked the
committee not to advance HB 4.
4:29:02 PM
JANET JAHNSAN, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB
4. She characterized the proposed legislation as disrespectful
to all the voters who voted in favor of RCV. She urged the
committee to listen to the overwhelming support for RCV that was
voiced today. Further, she expressed support for open
primaries, which allowed all options to be considered. She
encouraged the committee to oppose HB 4.
4:30:21 PM
ERIC JORDAN, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB 4.
He stated that the partisan party primaries often favored the
most extreme candidates, often leading to a choice between the
"lesser of two evils." He expressed strong support for RCV and
opposition to HB 4.
4:31:55 PM
LUIN MCCABE, Representing Self, testified in support of HB 4.
She pointed out that RCV was one of three subjects on Ballot
Measure 2, which was sold on the promise of eliminating dark
money. She reported that millions of dollars in out-of-state
money flooded into Alaska from out of state in support of RCV
during the 2020 campaign season. She questioned why out-of-
state interests wanted influence in Alaska elections and why
citizens were deceived with false advertising. She asserted
that RCV allowed for multiple selections, which diminished the
notion of "one vote per person." Further, she indicated that
the complexity of RCV eliminated the possibility of hand counts.
She shared a personal anecdote.
4:34:31 PM
KELLY FISHLER, Representing Self, testified in support of HB 4,
describing RCV as too complicated and complex. She said she
wanted her vote to count. She opined that RCV favored "middle
of the road" candidates who were not as well liked as the
election results would indicate. Further, she suggested that
the additional information on the RCV ballots resulted in more
exhausted ballots. She suggested that low voter turnout was an
indication that RCV was not working.
4:36:26 PM
GRIFFIN PLUSH, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB
4. He discussed voter turnout, claiming that it was the highest
it had been since 2014 for the regular primary election. For
the regular general election, voter turnout was comparable to
previous midterm general elections, he asserted. He believed
that Alaskans were capable of learning and adjusting to the new
system and needed time to do so. He referenced exhausted
ballots, explaining that some people made the choice not to mark
all three categories. He cautioned against assuming that people
didn't know what they were doing if they allowed their ballots
to be exhausted. He addressed the "spoiler effect," indicating
that RCV allowed candidates to run with less institutional
support.
4:39:22 PM
DEBBIE GOZDOR, Representing Self, testified in support of HB 4.
She said she found RCV confusing and expressed her frustration
with the system. She urged the committee to support the
legislation.
4:41:26 PM
ROBERT HOCKEMA, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB
4. He responded to the claim that exhausted ballots were
discarded from the final total, which he described as
misleading. He explained the RCV process in detail, indicating
that many individuals intentionally chose not to vote second,
third, and fourth option because the first choice was the only
candidate that satisfied their (indisc.). He explained that
this process is referred to as "ballot exhaustion" and likened
it to a runoff election. He pointed out that like runoff
elections, RCV involved multiple rounds of voting that some
choose not to participate in. He reminded members that the 2022
midterm had the lowest voter turnout since 2014 across the
entire nation. He urged the committee to oppose the bill.
4:44:09 PM
DONNA STEINFORT, Representing Self, testified in opposition to
HB 4. She noted her frustration with the closed primary system,
as it did not allow her to vote for the candidate of her choice.
As an elected official, she found that voters generally liked
RCV once they understood the system. RCV forced candidates to
speak to the issues, she said, and reduced the "stranglehold" of
political parties on the election process. Further, she argued
that she was given a greater voice by ranking candidates. She
urged a "no" vote on HB 4.
4:45:49 PM
MARK SPRINGER, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB
4. He pointed out that Alaskans deserved to be represented by
the "best and brightest," adding that RCV magnified the ability
to represented the necessary leaders to progress into the
twenty-first century. He argued that running for office was a
"pay to play" proposition, adding that party loyalty finished
ahead of the candidates' willingness to serve the state. He
believed that RCV alleviated this by loosening the "iron first
grip" parties sought to impose on candidates and election office
holders and gave all Alaskans an opportunity and a voice.
4:47:47 PM
MIKE GRUNST, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB 4.
He stated that RCV was the best method to equalize the election
field and allow voters to have their voices heard. Further, RCV
took the power away from the parties and made candidates appeal
to a wider selection of Alaskans not just the extremes on either
end of the political spectrum, he added. As an Alaskan, he said
he was tired of voting against a candidate, indicating that RCV
allowed him to choose a candidate that best represented him. He
discussed the cost saving aspect of RCV, as it eliminated the
need for expensive runoff elections. He emphasized that RCV was
simple, easy to use, effective, and fiscally responsible.
4:50:46 PM
LIBBY DALTON, Representing Self, testified in support of HB 4.
She pointed out that the RCV initiative narrowly passed and
asserted that the measure was financed by dark money in an
effort to reelect U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski. She discussed
Scott Kendall's role in the initiative and claimed that Alaskans
were blatantly deceived. She urged support for the bill and a
return to the traditional system.
4:53:59 PM
BRONSON FRYE, President, Building and Construction Trade Council
of Southcentral Alaska, testified in opposition to HB 4, stating
that he trusted Alaskans to know what's best for Alaskans. He
pointed out that RCV had been explicitly and directly approved
by Alaskan voters and characterized the bill as a disrespectful
attempt by politicians to overturn the will of the people. He
described the bill sponsor's claim that HB 4 was "upholding the
will of the voters" as disingenuous when Alaskans voted for RCV
in 2020. He urged legislators to "quit lying" to their
constituents.
4:55:54 PM
BARBARA TYNDALL, Representing Self, testified in support of HB
4. As an election official, she recounted the confusion,
frustration, and anger she witnessed at the ballot box during
the most recent election. She discussed the audit of Ballot
Measure 2 and claimed that Alaskans did not truly vote in favor
of the initiative, which was funded by dark money, she said.
She discussed low voter turnout and urged the committee to pass
the bill.
4:58:07 PM
CHAIR SHAW closed public testimony on HB 4. He announced that
the bill would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 4 - AK Chamber Dittman Poll Page.pdf |
HJUD 5/11/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/12/2023 1:00:00 PM HSTA 5/2/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 4 |
| HB 4 - Fiscal Note - GOV - 2,500.0.pdf |
HJUD 5/12/2023 1:00:00 PM HSTA 5/2/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 4 |
| HB 4 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 5/12/2023 1:00:00 PM HSTA 5/2/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 4 |
| HB 4 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 5/2/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 4 |
| HB 4 - v.A.PDF |
HJUD 5/12/2023 1:00:00 PM HSTA 5/2/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 4 |
| HB 4 - Maine Policy Institute Study on RCV.pdf |
HJUD 5/11/2023 1:00:00 PM HJUD 5/12/2023 1:00:00 PM HSTA 5/2/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 4 |
| HB 4 - Emailed Public Comment - As of 05-02 - Support.pdf |
HSTA 5/2/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 4 |