Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
05/09/2023 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 | |
| HB157 | |
| HB4 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 157 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 4-ELECTIONS: REPEAL RANKED CHOICE VOTING
3:17:31 PM
CHAIR SHAW announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 4, "An Act relating to elections."
3:19:23 PM
CHAIR SHAW re-opened public testimony on HB 4.
3:20:36 PM
DELAYNA WEST, Representing Self, testified in support of HB 4.
She referenced uninformed consent and reiterated her support
for the bill.
3:21:13 PM
DAVE LEWIS, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB 4.
He expressed support for rank choice voting (RCV) because it
gave power of choice to the people, as opposed to the party.
3:21:49 PM
BRENDA EDENS, Representing Self, testified in support of HB 4.
She urged the committee to support the bill and repeal RCV.
3:22:19 PM
MARK EDENS, Representing Self, testified in support of HB 4 and
the repeal of RCV. He believed that the results of the vote for
the RCV initiative was skewed by dark money.
3:22:59 PM
KATHLEEN YARR, Representing Self, testified in support of HB 4
and the repeal of RCV. She claimed that many young people were
confused by RCV and choosing not to vote as a result.
3:23:49 PM
DONALD THOMPSON, Representing Self, testified in support of HB
4. He said RCV was sold as a bill of goods by dark money with
the claim of excluding dark money. He believed the RCV was
confusing and diminished the number of voters.
3:24:51 PM
BARBARA TYNDALL, Representing Self, testified in support of HB 4
and the repeal of RCV. She recounted her experience attending
the audit of Ballot Measure 2 [Top-Four Ranked Choice Voting and
Campaign Finance Laws Initiative (2020)] in Juneau, claiming
that the proposition was a sham. She urged the passage of HB
4.
3:26:14 PM
GARY TYNDALL, Representing Self, testified in support of HB 4
and urged the committee to return Alaskas election integrity.
He said the public was sold a bill of goods and recounted his
experience working at a polling station.
3:27:48 PM
CAROL CLAUSSON, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB
4 because it would overturn the will of the people. She
questioned why a person should vote in Alaska if the legislature
could overturn the will of the people, which she characterized
as un-American. She reported that exit polls found RCV to be
easy to understand.
3:29:01 PM
CARL BRODERSON, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB
4, which he characterized as a semi-veiled attempt at voter
suppression. He emphasized that RCV was still one person one
vote, adding that the winner was still the person with the most
votes. He reported that Alaska's voter turnout trended near the
nations and emphasized that a signature had always been
required on mail-in ballots. Lastly, he highlighted the
difference between an exhausted ballot and a rejected ballot.
He urged the committee to respect the will of voters and to keep
RCV and open primaries.
3:30:11 PM
JOHN LETTOW, Representing Self, testified in support of HB 4.
He recounted his experience as a poll watcher and asserted that
passage of HB 4 would demonstrate that action had been taken to
restore election integrity.
3:31:14 PM
APRIL WILSON, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB
4. As a former professor of political science at the University
of Alaska Anchorage (UAA), he reported that open ballot RCV
reduced the problem of wedge issues, which was used by parties
to distort electoral outcomes. She said RCV ameliorated the
voting strength of single-issue voters by giving all voters the
means of avoiding (indisc.) Lastly, she characterized the bill
sponsors assertion that most Alaskans were against RCV as
facetious. She also took exception to the claim that the
elderly couldnt understand RCV.
3:33:06 PM
LOU THEISS, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB 4.
He recounted his experience as a poll worker, highlighting the
disenfranchisement of non-republican voters.
3:34:19 PM
PAMELA BRODIE, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB
4. She discussed the public fear and anger fueled by highly
partisan elected officials. She said she was proud that in
Alaska, there was a return towards peaceful relations between
neighbors that disagree politically and discussed friendship
across party lines. She recounted her experience as a poll
worker.
3:35:50 PM
MIKE JONES, Representing Self, testified in support of HB 4 and
the repeal of RCV. He recalled Ballot Measure 2, asserting that
the proposition contained two separate and distinct issues. He
said it was easy to see how a person could vote for the
proposition out of concern for dark money without realizing the
subtleties and unintended consequences of RCV. He urged the
committee to eliminate RCV and restore trust in the election
process.
3:37:08 PM
EILEEN BECKER, Representing Self, testified in support of HB 4.
She shared a personal anecdote, inferring that RCV was difficult
to understand.
3:38:43 PM
BILL MUNROE, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB 4
because it would overturn the will of the people. He shared his
belief that RCV was the best way to solve radical polarization
in Alaska politics.
3:39:18 PM
GAYLE A MCCANN, Representing Self, testified in support of HB 4.
She expressed concern that Alaska was getting a little bit too
much of California involved in its politics. She said she
wished to get RCV back on the ballot to be re-voted on in the
next election.
3:40:16 PM
BERT HOUGHTALING, Representing Self, testified in support of HB
4. He posited that the judicial branch, through a level of
corruption, prevented RCV from being a single item on the
ballot, adding that the proposition was confused by dark money.
He shared his belief that Ballot Measure 2 should not have
passed and should be repealed.
3:41:06 PM
SUE BURNSTIN, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB
4. She stated that RCV expanded her option to vote for the most
appealing candidate regardless of party affiliation. She urged
the legislature to give RCV a chance to succeed.
3:41:53 PM
DOUG VANPATTEN, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB
4, because he wanted the opportunity to vote for the most
qualified candidate regardless of party affiliation. He argued
that democracy had been improved through RCV, as elections were
more inclusive and competitive. He challenged the idea that RCV
was too complicated, concluding that HB 4 was a waste of time
and taxpayers money.
3:43:07 PM
JAMES NELSON, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB
4. He posited that the proof is in the pudding as to the
effectiveness of RCV, referencing the election of U.S.
Representative Mary Peltola.
3:44:17 PM
LUANNE NELSON, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB
4. She emphasized that RCV was the will of the people and
challenged the notion that it was difficult to understand. She
encouraged those who disliked the outcome [of Ballot Measure 2]
to propose a referendum, rather than legislate its repeal.
3:45:16 PM
SYLVIA KIDD, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB 4
and the repeal of RCV and open primaries, which were passed as a
citizens initiative. She said Alaska often had the courage to
try new things, arguing that there hadnt been enough time to
tell [whether RCV was working or not]. She applauded the
bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate and
concluded that RCV would result in more representation in the
government.
3:46:35 PM
TOM BOUTIN, Representing Self, testified in support of HB 4. He
contended that RCV destroyed good faith in elections and reduced
voter turnout.
3:47:12 PM
SHERRY STRIZAK, Representing Self, testified in support of HB 4
and the repeal of RCV. She urged a return to the traditional
method of voting.
3:48:03 PM
DAVID MONSON, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB
4, as RCV and open primaries were adopted by the will of the
people. He asserted that the legislature should not repeal [the
peoples will] and challenged the idea that RCV was confusing.
3:49:23 PM
MICHAEL GARHART, Representing Self, testified in support of HB
4. He shared his belief that RCV left Alaskas elections open
to fraud and manipulation.
3:50:01 PM
DOMINIC SCALISE, Representing Self, testified in opposition to
HB 4, which he characterized as an insult against the democratic
will of the people. He disputed the idea that RCV was
challenging to understand, adding that RCV allowed him to vote
for his preferred candidate.
3:50:53 PM
JOEL SIGMAN, Representing Self, testified in support of HB 4.
He urged a return to paper ballots to ensure fair elections and
questioned the use of electronics, which he believed could be
hacked and changed.
3:52:08 PM
CONSTANCE FREDENBERG, Representing Self, testified in opposition
to HB 4. She challenged the idea that RCV was confusing, adding
that RCV gave voters more options and eliminated the need for
runoff elections.
3:53:11 PM
KIMBERLY NIELSEN, Representing Self, testified in opposition to
HB 4. She said she found RCV to be easy to understand and
encouraged candidates to be more bipartisan and willing to work
across the aisle. She discussed the extreme divide between
republicans and democrats, naming it as the most serious problem
faced by the country.
3:55:01 PM
WILLIAM SALTONSTALL, Representing Self, testified in opposition
to HB 4, adding that he was satisfied with the results of RCV,
which allowed him to vote for the candidate of his choice from
either party.
3:56:05 PM
ELIZABETH SALTONSTALL, Representing Self, testified in
opposition to HB 4. She said she found the educational
component for RCV to be complete and understandable, adding that
the system gave her the option to vote for the best candidate.
3:56:52 PM
IAN LAING, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB 4.
He posited that RCV was the most positive and substantive piece
of election reform policy enacted in the last 10 years, citing
systematic issues such as political polarization as the issues
tearing Alaska and the country apart from the inside. He urged
the legislature to give RCV some time to create a better, more
functional democracy.
3:58:10 PM
LAURA BONNER, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB
4. She declared that she had voted against Ballot Measure 2;
however, she was glad it passed, as it allowed her to vote for
the candidate of her choice. She said she felt disenfranchised
by the closed primary system and disputed the need for extensive
runoff elections.
3:59:20 PM
AMY MURRILS, Representing Self, testified in support of HB 4.
She shared her belief that RCV was confusing and advised the
return to a paper ballot system.
4:00:11 PM
STUART SCHMUTZLER, Representing Self, testified in opposition to
HB 4. He pointed out that RCV was passed by a majority vote and
found it to be unconscionable that a handful of legislators
would attempt to overturn that. He challenged the idea that RCV
was difficult and reiterated his opposition to legislators
overturning the will of the people.
4:01:37 PM
LINDA COURTICE, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB
4 on behalf of herself and her family. She opined that RCV was
simple to use and provided a higher quality candidate list to
choose from instead of the choice being made by partisan
political machines.
4:03:15 PM
CLARICE JOHNSON, Representing Self, testified in opposition to
HB 4, which she believed would take away her voice and the voice
of many Alaskans. RCV allowed her to consider all candidates
regardless of party affiliation, she said. She discussed the
Alaska Republican Party (GOP) and the recent behavior of a
prominent Alaska Republican, indicating that education was
needed now more than ever. She said she wanted the option to
vote for more moderate republicans, adding that RCV allowed for
a wide range of views to be represented.
4:04:53 PM
PAMELA CONRAD, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB
4. She stressed that RCV was voted in by constituents and,
should it need to be repealed, believed that it should be put
back to a popular vote. She characterized the proposed
legislation as a dishonest and deceitful way to overturn a
popular vote and was insulted by the assertion that RCV was too
confusing. She highlighted the large pool of independent voters
in Alaska, adding that RCV gave them a voice.
4:06:29 PM
JEANNETTE LEE, Alaska Research Director, Sightline Institute,
testified in opposition to HB 4. She shared that RCV did not
affect the tabulation of most races, noting that every member of
the House State Affairs Standing Committee won outright in the
general election without triggering the ranking process. She
said RCV was an option that made runoff elections unnecessary
and prevented spoilers. Retuning to an open primary, she said,
gave Alaskas independent voters more candidates to choose from;
further, the results of the RCV system did not benefit one party
over and another and mirrored the majority of Alaskas voters,
which were independent with a rightwing lean.
4:08:09 PM
BOB GRUNDERSON, Representing Self, testified in support of HB 4.
He shared his belief that there was more dark money in Alaska
since RCV was passed, adding that the system caused too much
confusion and would split the vote if allowed to continue.
4:09:13 PM
PAUL RADZINSKI, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB
4. He characterized the attempt to overturn the will of the
people as undemocratic and un-Alaskan.
4:09:53 PM
WALTER FEATHERLY, Representing Self, testified in opposition to
HB 4. He shared his experience running for the House as a
registered nonpartisan, explaining that he was eliminated in the
second round in the RCV tabulation. He indicated that the
election of his opponent, a registered republican, demonstrated
that RCV worked at least as well for republicans as it did for
all party affiliations. He opined that Ballot Measure 2
provided Alaskans with the independence and freedom to vote for
who they want, regardless of the candidates party affiliation.
4:11:34 PM
MARGARET MORAN, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB
4. She shared her understanding that the majority of Alaskans
who were registered as nonpartisan did not want to be forced to
choose a particular ticket. She explained the rank choice
process and disputed the idea that RCV was counted by an
algorithm. Instead, she shared that the votes were counted by
computer, adding that it would be possible to count them by hand
if necessary.
4:13:27 PM
LIN DAVIS, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB 4,
reiterating that RCV reduced the use of extremist wedge issues.
4:14:22 PM
MARILYN WICK, Representing Self, testified in support of HB 4.
She described RCV as a corrupt system of voting that took away
the constitutional right to cast one vote for one candidate.
She encouraged a return to the original two-party primary
system.
4:15:40 PM
RAYMOND WALKER, Representing Self, testified in support of HB 4.
He stated his opposition to the Dominion Voting Systems voting
machines and algorithms.
4:16:21 PM
SANTA CLAUS, Representing Self, testified in opposition to HB 4.
Prior to RCV, the republican and democratic parties monopolized
the elections, controlled the primaries, and decided who ran and
who didn't, he said. Additionally, he expressed his support for
open primaries, which allowed voters to choose the candidate
that best represented their values and interests. He said RCV
reduced partisanship and encouraged more candidates to run,
reiterating his support for HB 4.
CHAIR SHAW closed public testimony on HB 4.
4:18:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT moved to report HB 4 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, HB 4 was reported out of the House
State Affairs Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY objected. She explained that laws were
made through either the legislature or a citizen's initiative.
She said she felt uneasy about repealing a citizens initiative
and opposed moving HB 4 from committee.
4:18:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ALLARD shared her belief that she was deceived by
Ballot Measure 2. Additionally, she cited a survey conducted by
the Alaska Chamber, which suggested that many people who voted
for Ballot Measure 2 also felt deceived. She opined that Ballot
Measure 2 was confusing, adding that she believed in one person
one vote.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY maintained her objection.
4:20:32 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Carpenter, Allard,
Wright, and Shaw voted in favor of moving HB 4 out of committee.
Representative Story voted against it. Therefore, HB 4 was
reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee by a
vote of 4-1.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 157 ver A.PDF |
HSTA 5/9/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB 157 - Fiscal Note - COR - 525.6.pdf |
HSTA 5/9/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB 157 - Fiscal Note - DEED - 4.6.pdf |
HSTA 5/9/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB 157 - Fiscal Note - DFG - 54.2.pdf |
HSTA 5/9/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB 157 - Fiscal Note - DOT - 125.9.pdf |
HSTA 5/9/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB 157 - Fiscal Note - DPS - 373.6.pdf |
HSTA 5/9/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB 157 - Fiscal Note - FCS - 102.0.pdf |
HSTA 5/9/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB 157 - Fiscal Note - HEA - 2.0.pdf |
HSTA 5/9/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB 157 - Fiscal Note - MVA - 0.0.pdf |
HSTA 5/9/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB 157 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HSTA 5/9/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |
| HB 157 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HSTA 5/9/2023 3:00:00 PM |
HB 157 |