Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/01/1999 08:15 AM STA
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 141 PREFERENTIAL VOTING CHAIR JAMES announced HB 141, "An "ACCU-Vote" providing for preferential voting in state and local elections," is before the committee. Number 014 CHAIR JAMES read JOHN FIELDS, Vice-Chair, Alaska Independence Party, Fairbanks, testimony into the record. I would like to speak in support of HB 141. It appears to be one way of saving everyone money by eliminating primaries and runoff elections. Preferential voting would also, I think, have voters back to the polls by allowing them to have the option of voting their conscience rather than having the illusion of voting the lesser of two evils. Let's face it the two party system is, if not dead at least dieing. Alternative parties are proliferating we need a balloting system that offers today's reality not yesterdays pipe dreams. CHAIR JAMES noted that a new CS had been drafted. [Version L was before the committee on Tuesday]. Number 056 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON moved to adopt CSSSHB 141, version LS0069\M, 4/1/99, as the working document before the committee. Number 075 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN objected because he has not had the chance to review it. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON pointed out that the new CS would have to be adopted before it can be discussed. CHAIR JAMES reiterated the motion is to adopt CSSSHB 141, version LS0069\M, as the working document before the committee and asked if there were any objections. There being none, it was so ordered. Number 123 KELLY SULLIVAN, Secretary, Representative Kott's office, came forward. She said version M addresses some of the concerns that were raised by the Division of Elections. Ms. Sullivan said the language in the last committee substitute [version L] could have been interpreted as a closed primary which would have been unconstitutional. Therefore, the language was amended by adding the word "blanket" primary. MS. SULLIVAN pointed out that there also were questions regarding the ballot layout and dealing with special advanced [overseas] ballots mailed to voters who are out of the country. Version M now gives more discretion to the director and the Division of Elections on how they want the ballots printed and counted. She said, "So we don't have folks counting in the precincts there until 5:00 in the morning because it is going to take more time." MS. SULLIVAN noted that Section 3 permits the director of the Division of Elections to adopt regulations necessary to expedite the manner in which ballot counts are accomplished. MS. SULLIVAN stated that another concern was about write-in candidates and how they would be ranked if he or she received one, two or three votes. She said Section 4 prescribes a manner in which candidates (who receive the least first-choice votes), specifically candidates who are write-ins (who receive less than 25 votes) are eliminated, and then the second-choice votes are distributed. Number 199 CHAIR JAMES mentioned Kathryn Kurtz (drafter of HB 141) is present. KATHLEEN STRASBAUGH, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs Section (one of the attorneys who works with the Division of Elections), Department of Law, came before the committee. She expressed her concern about the speed at which this radical departure from our usual procedures is proceeding. MS. STRASBAUGH indicated that she really would have liked to explore election contests in Ireland and Australia to see if this process has generated more or less litigation about counting ballots. Do people double-rank candidates and blackout too many squares. She emphasized that these are the types of issues that are looked at when systems are being switched. She said the division wants some precedents, or a place with a long experience, to tell them how this is going to work in practice. MS. STRASBAUGH mentioned she overheard a conversation about the elimination of the district board - a removal from a local office. She said maybe it's a good thing, maybe it's bad, but it's something that needs to be discussed. Number 245 MS. STRASBAUGH emphasized that HJR 31 [Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska requiring that the Governor be elected by a majority vote if a preferential voting system is provided by law] may require a constitutional amendment, which creates is a potential flaw in this legislation [HB 141]. MS. STRASBAUGH said she believes Sections 25 and 26 was the effort to deal with the open primary, however, it wasn't successful. The director shall include instructions on blanket primary election ballots directing the voter to mark candidates for an office within a single political party in order of preference and to mark as many choices as the voter wishes within a single political party, but not to assign a particular ranking to more than one candidate or to rank candidates from more than one party. MS. STRASBAUGH said people will want to debate this on all sides of the spectrum. She reiterated that, in her opinion, that effort was not successful - that new section changes the character of the primary. CHAIR JAMES pointed out that HB 141 is trying to make sure that the voters are able to vote across the board and to be sure that two candidates, from the same party, don't win in the primary. Number 277 MS. STRASBAUGH said, "Because I don't think this does it, I was thinking (indisc.) it might limit somebody to - within a party and it has the effect of not letting them do what they have always done in the past; that's the way I read it." CHAIR JAMES remarked that this doesn't necessarily do that. She said they currently can't take more than one party person in a primary and we don't want them to do that again. And, if that doesn't work, let's work on that language. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Ms. Strasbaugh repeat her testimony. MS. STRASBAUGH said she had referred to Sections 25 and 26, page 9, version M, and understood that there was an effort to solve that problem. However, Section 26 might be read to limit people to voting within one party. If that is the intent, it might need to be mentioned in the title, furthermore, the language would have to be changed. Number 315 MS. STRASBAUGH said her final point has to do with a basic review of bills - does this [HB 141] accomplish the objective? She was under the impression that some people, who are enthusiastic about it, think it's going to assure majority support for the winning candidate. MS. STRASBAUGH stated that, "In Scenario 1 [Provided in the packet], I'm not trying to tie this to anything that's going on in Alaska, I'm just assuming - perhaps the presence of some relatively strong third parties. So, if you have to go to round three, have the result of a third party, who's many people's third choice, is winning. This is something that can happen, it doesn't mean that it will." CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Strasbaugh to repeat, "many people's third choice." Number 346 MS. STRASBAUGH replied yes, the third choice can win. She explained that she had read on a Web site that the Irish Prime Minister, Mary Robinson, had floated to the top from a third position which may certainly give hope to alternative and third party candidates. This may be an objective of HB 141, and it may be the source of support. She said she is not criticizing the objective, but that is one possible result of using the preferential voting system. CHAIR JAMES pointed out that a survey was conducted by her office regarding the 1996 election. She said she asked her constituents if "none of the above" was one of the choices would they have voted, and they responded yes. Chair James said we must have a system that the majority supports, and people should fell like their vote will count. They can have a second choice and know that if it isn't a majority in the beginning that their second vote will count. She emphasized that she didn't want to see the two-party system die. MS. STRASBAUGH said people are going to have different views of what this does for them. She expressed concern, based on what she has heard, that if her third choice gets elected, whether that person really has majority support. She indicated that the example that was presented in the video assumed that we had a powerful majority that has broken into factions, however, they were able to gather together to win because they really were in the majority. Ms. Strasbaugh stated that she wanted to show that there were a number of other scenarios. Number 439 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referred to the third-choice winning. He asked if that occurred in Ireland. MS. STRASBAUGH replied yes, she read that on a Webb site. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he wanted more discussion regarding the third-choice winning to see how that might work. CHAIR JAMES mentioned that she has been a member of organizations which conducted their elections in this manner. She indicated that if Alaska didn't have a primary, there is the possibility of a second or third choice being grouped with another party with this system. However, she doesn't believe that there are enough other parties that would cause this to happen. MS. STRASBAUGH stated that she is under the impression that that actually did happen in Ireland, that the Prime Minister was elected that way. CHAIR JAMES said that indicates that no one was popular in the first place because they had to go to a third vote. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stressed that he is concerned with the comment by the attorney that this may be unconstitutional as it relates to the governor. Number 495 CHAIR JAMES noted a constitutional amendment is in the Judiciary Committee just for that reason. House Joint Resolution 31 states: The candidate receiving the greatest number of votes shall be governor except if a preferential voting system is provided by law the candidate receiving the majority votes will. CHAIR JAMES explained that it just accepts preferential voting, if the legislature would so choose. MS. STRASBAUGH noted the constitution presently requires the greatest number of votes only. CHAIR JAMES agreed with Ms. Strasbaugh. She said it's narrow; if one candidate received 30 percent of the votes and another candidate received 30 percent he or she would also win. MS. STRASBAUGH referred to Representative Ogan's question regarding what would happen if a person only chose one candidate. She said, "In scenario 2, I found that I could lose even if I was in a majority party. If there is a strong third or fourth party, and it dropped out, then I could lose my franchise. That's the way I feel about it, that's not what's really happening. I had my chance to vote several times and I chose not too. But the one potential result (again assuming the parties are well within striking distance of each other) is that you still end up without a majority because a lot of people said, 'By golly, I can only vote for my candidate, I can't vote for any other.' And I frankly would certainly feel that way in a lot of elections, especially local ones." CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Strasbaugh if she didn't have a second choice. Number 533 MS. STRASBAUGH responded that she often has a second choice but doesn't always, especially in a smaller jurisdiction. She noted that this concerns her a lot because, if the body politically chooses this system, they'll know what they're getting into but the average voter may not know that. She emphasized that the Division of Elections can't direct people on how to use these choices [first, second, and third]. She said, "I think that if people decide they only have one choice, or even (indisc.) have two in a situation where you're going down to your third choice you could end up without a majority." REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said there's a principle when you have multiple choices on a ballot - called a short ballot. And, if half of the people vote multiple choices, and the other half vote for one candidate, it would be interesting to see if that would be a short ballot and would heavily favor the person that receives only one vote with no alternative. Someone, who might be a longshot, could say, "You want to elect me, just make sure you vote for me and only me." He said it might not be as blatant as that, but it could design a strategy to encourage people to do that which would give them an unfair advantage. CHAIR JAMES explained that a short ballot counts only when you are expecting to have multiple decisions. In other words, you're electing three out of five. MS. STRASBAUGH said she tends to believe that that works for at- large, where there's more than one candidate. However, she doesn't know if it would work in a preference if you had an at-large situation. She said she was surprised to see that she might drop out all together and not be counted and that wasn't what she had expected. Number 589 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted that was one of her concerns because the first CS [version L] actually states that you're going to drop out if you don't have other choices. She said that is not the way we were brought up to vote. And, it's intuitive to us that we have more power if we just vote once. MS. STRASBAUGH emphasized that people need to be able to debate what their vote means. She said she would like to read the CS to discover what the counting, and other difficulties are in the language. She noted that there are legal problems associated with the practical difficulties which Ms. Fenumiai had described. She said, "And, when you start having access problems, you're talking about the Justice Department and there won't be any precedents for them to look at either." CHAIR JAMES said this is a huge change and change doesn't come easy. She mentioned that she has been watching the destruction of the two-party system over the years. CHAIR JAMES indicated HB 141 will move quickly through the legislature. However she suspects it will not become law. She said she personally would like it to pass because a lot of people, who currently don't vote, will come to the table on this one. Number 663 GAIL FENUMIAI, Election Program Specialist, Division of Elections, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, stated that she is not going to address the new CS because the division has not had an opportunity to review it section by section. She stated for the record that the division would like to have HB 141 held. MS. FENUMIAI emphasized that there will be fiscal impacts. And, due to the sponsor substitute on Tuesday, and a CS again today, the division has not had an opportunity to put dollar amounts together. CHAIR JAMES said she understands that the division couldn't possibly prepare a fiscal note at this time and agreed that HB 141 will have a huge fiscal impact. MS. FENUMIAI said she would provide the committee with Cambridge's sample ballots. CHAIR JAMES asked if Cambridge used the ACCU-Vote system but with a different platform. MS. FENUMIAI replied yes, Cambridge uses different software. Number 692 CHIP WAGONER, Republican National Committeeman, Chair, Legislative Committee, Republican National Committee came before the committee. He explained that voters, in a closed primary, must be a member of the political party in order to vote for a member of that political party. In an open primary, a voter must be either a nonpartisan or a member of the political party in order to vote in that political party. He said he believes Alaska is one of three states that have a blanket primary (California and Washington are the others) where anyone can vote for a party-person and can mix and match. MR. WAGONER stressed that there is no change in this bill. What HB 141 does, is it gives the voter additional rights of expressing their preferences in the primary system. For instance, once they decide who they want for governor, they could rank all the Democrats for governor. If they decide to vote for a Republican for the State House of Representatives, they can rank all of the Republicans. But to allow them to rank everyone in all of the offices, for all of the parties, would essentially give them the right to vote not once, but for how many more times there are parties. He said, "One person, one vote is something we all believe in." Number 725 MR. WAGONER referred to Ireland's 1990 presidential election. Brian Lenihan received 44 percent of the votes as the first-choice vote, Mary Robinson (who was elected) received 38 percent, and Austin Currie received 17 percent. Austin Currie, who come in third was eliminated and his votes were transferred. Fourteen percent of those votes went to Mary Robinson and 3 percent went to Brian Lenihan. So Mary Robinson ended up winning by 53 percent. Mr. Wagoner said, "The beauty of this, in terms of ensuring that the most representative candidate wins, is that the only people ever eliminated in this process are those that come in last. The person that comes in third, as the assistant attorney general stated, on the first-go-around is actually the most representative candidate when you take into account all the voters." He indicated that often a person's second choice is more liked than people that may be on the extreme. MR. WAGONER referred to the comment that voters will not understand this system. He urged the committee members to read the Vermont Commission Report because junior high school students and high school students used this system and 91 percent of those students said they did not have any difficulty in understanding it. MR. WAGONER referred to the constitutional issue on electing a governor. He pointed out that there are two provisions in the constitution which applies, the first one mentioned by the assistant attorney general is Article 3, Section 3, basically says most votes wins, however, Article 5, Section 3, states that the legislature shall determine the method of voting. He asked, "Which one of those sections prevails? We could just avoid the litigation by making the change that takes care of all of the constitutional issues." Number 774 MS. FENUMIAI mentioned that Vermont did have a commission that strongly recommended going to preferential voting. She noted legislation was introduced but failed to move out of the first committee during Vermont's last two legislative sessions. She also mentioned similar legislation passed the Senate in New Mexico but failed in the House. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Ms. Fenumiai if Vermont required a constitutional amendment. MS. FENUMIAI replied that she is not sure, but New Mexico did require a constitutional amendment and that failed. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON indicated that if we could find that out, that might help the committee understand it better. CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Fenumiai what the percentage of voters are not of a political party persuasion. Number 792 MS. FENUMIAI pointed out that the undeclared are 33.77 percent, and the nonpartisans are 18.13 percent, combined it is 51 percent. She said, on a side note, John Lindback, Chief of Staff, Office of the Lieutenant Governor has a copy of the Vermont legislation and that will be provided to the committee. She also noted the legislature in Vermont didn't feel that the current system was broken so they didn't feel the need to fix it. CHAIR JAMES said we don't know what the political will is and the two-party system is broken in the state. She said she would be interested in knowing what those numbers are in other states. Furthermore, being independent is indicative of Alaska. Chair James said she wouldn't feel bad if Alaska was the first state to accept the preferential voting system. MS. FENUMIAI pointed out that it also appears back through 1992 that nonpartisan and undeclared affiliated voters have been more than 50 percent. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN remarked Alaskans are allowed to vote by fax, is that correct. MS. FENUMIAI replied that is correct. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if that was done by regulation or by statute. MS. FENUMIAI replied by statute. Number 825 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he has two concerns. One is how would that be incorporated, and whether or not it has been addressed in HB 141. He said it also appears to be a violation of the constitution because Article 5, Section 3 says, "Secrecy of voting shall be preserved." MS. FENUMIAI explained that prior legislation specifically states that the voter waived their entire right to a secret ballot by choosing to vote by fax. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if a voter can waive a constitutional right. CHAIR JAMES indicated that she knew what Representative Ogan was going to say because she shares the same feelings. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said, if you have a Democrat, a Republican and a Green, you're not going to allow people to rank all three, you're not going to let them vote across the board. Is that right? MR. WAGONER replied, "You don't now under the blanket primary." REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she wants to understand what this one [HB 141] does. She stated that this won't happen, under the intent of this legislation. MR. WAGONER replied, "You're correct, it works the exact same way it works now for blanket primaries. The only difference is the voter has the additional option of ranking. Once they've picked the office, and the candidate they like in that office, they get to rank all the candidates for that party in that office." REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA further stated, okay, so number two, where you've got a Democrat, and a Republican and a Green, this also can't happen. You can't have one first choice going to a Democrat, and then crossing over for a second for a Republican, third for a Republican, or wherever. That can't happen either? MR. WAGONER replied, "That is for the same office." Number 857 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA clarified that we are just talking about one office. She said she believes a lot of people were confused because the committee heard a lot of smaller parties testified, "Great idea, this will bring it down, let us people have second choices." She emphasized that can't happen if it's the same office - this won't happen. MR. WAGONER replied, no, all recognized parties are entitled by law to get on the general election ballot. That all other parties are not recognized to automatically be on the general election ballot unless they have a petition of so many names. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA clarified that then this could happen in the general election. TAPE 99-20, SIDE B Number 001 MR. WAGONER pointed out that all of the voters will be able to rank all parties in the general election. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said, in the general this could happen. MR. WAGONER replied yes, because they're all running for the same office. However, in the primary election the Republican is running for the Republican nomination, the Democrat is running for the Democrats' nomination, and so on. A primary is a series of five elections, one for each one of the parties. And the voters, no matter how they're registered, will be able to vote in whichever one of those primaries they want to vote in. He said, "But under current law we don't allow them to vote in all five, and under the new law - we didn't change that." REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA reiterated that the voters could choose within the party during the primary. She said she just wanted to be sure she understood that. Number 035 MS. FENUMIAI drew the member's attention to information that was found on the Internet regarding preferential voting. She read the following: Under the Irish alternative vote system (AV) a lower placed candidate who picks up a lots of preference votes can still overtake higher-placed candidates and ultimately win the seat. The most recent example of a president winning through the transfer of preferences in this manner was the 1990 election of Mary Robinson to the Irish president. CHAIR JAMES commented that she doesn't know that that's bad, because in your second choice you're saying, "Okay, if I can't have that one I'll have this one." She said some people don't think their vote is going to count, so they don't vote. Number 074 ERIC SKIDMORE testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He said he is a resident of Chugiak and first heard about preferential voting when Jim Sykes ran for governor in 1990. And, like a lot of other people, he was confused by it at first but the more he looked at it, the better it sounded because it does give the third parties a more legitimate chance to get started. MR. SKIDMORE further stated, "The mathematics of it may be confusing, but then we're kind of mathematically challenged since we've had these single-member districts and winner-take-all situations, whereas, the rest of the world has had some sort of multi-member districts or mixed-member party lists. And I have a list here ... and it shows the turnout rates, and the European countries that used a kind of preferential voting - and they're much higher than even the European countries that don't use it such as Great Britain and France. And the United States turnout is like 40 percent and lower in some of these districts." MR. SKIDMORE said he thinks the third parties wouldn't split the vote in the perverse way that they do it now; you would get more of a majoritarian kind of outcome. For example, Senator Stevens asked Jack Coghill not to run as a third party because he was going to break into someone else's chance [of winning]. Mr. Skidmore said, "I think that's kind of an unfortunate situation because, when I go into Carrs [Quality Center] or Safeway [Stores, Incorporated], I would be appalled if I only had a choice between turnips and broccoli, which is what our current situation gives us. I would rather have 50 choices on the ballot and be confused than to have just two choices and not have anything like that." Number 125 MR. SKIDMORE mentioned that there was some concern that the Bush would have a hard time using the "computer situation." He said he thinks, in most cases, the second place votes would probably be decided in the urban areas where 90 percent of the computer- generated ballots could be counted. So, it would be very unlikely that you would actually have to go to a situation where it would go down to the wire. He indicated that elections, which usually go down to the wire, usually happen in the winner-take-all situation. MR. SKIDMORE concluded that in the last election, in 1998, 41 percent of the state legislative districts were unopposed by a major party candidate. He said that's probably the reason people are not showing up in droves to vote - it's because they have no choices. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Chair James if she intends to move HB 141 today. CHAIR JAMES replied that is her intention. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he believes there are still some things to digest and that CS was sprung on the committee only this morning. He said HB 141 is a good idea, and that he's not saying the committee shouldn't move it. He mentioned the Division of Elections has requested more time for consideration. CHAIR JAMES reiterated her stand on the issue of preferential voting. She read the following statement into the record because there is absolutely no way that the Division of Elections can provide a fiscal note: Number 211 The Division of Elections understandably cannot provide a fiscal note for the Committee Substitute for HB 141 until they know what the bill will look like. Since we have been requested to have this bill read across ASAP they cannot do that in the time allowed. After discussions with Tam Cook, Director of Legislative Legal Services, and with the House Clerk's office, we are informed it is allowed for our committee to do the following: 1. Since a fiscal note was requested in a timely manner but the Administration cannot provide it in time for the bill to be read across immediately, we can move HB 141 out of committee without a fiscal note attached. 2. The Clerk can read the bill across with "Fiscal Note Forth-coming." 3. Division of Elections will thus be given time to prepare a fiscal note in accordance with whatever changes our committee has made to the bill by the time we re-convene after the Easter break. Gail [Fenumiai] says this should give her time to have it ready by the time it gets to the Finance Committee. Number 242 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he would also like hold HB 141 because he would like to have a chance to study it and provide some input. He said "I feel awkward by trying to do it by making comments that might have a hidden answer here." He indicated that he likes the concept, but there are some questions that need to be answered. Representative Coghill also noted that before the committee moves a bill that doesn't have a fiscal note, he really would like to have the concept solidified. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said State Affairs is a good committee and it does good work. She noted that she would feel a lot more comfortable if she was able to read the CS before the bill moved. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON pointed out one of his biggest concerns is probably the applicableness to the constitution and the legal ramifications of it. He said he believes HB 141 would be benefited if it went through the Judiciary committee [not directly to the Finance Committee]. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON referred to the estimated of millions of dollars to implement a preferential voting system. He indicated that, knowing what the budget situation is and the general feeling that there will not be any increases, could be an impediment to its final passage this year. He said he will support moving HB 141. CHAIR JAMES agreed that HB 141 will have a huge fiscal note and that it will be a problem if the legislature were to pass this legislation this year. She suggested moving it out of committee so the public would be able to look at it. Chair James said she will put it to the vote. Number 328 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN suggested holding HB 141 until Thursday so people can digest it. CHAIR JAMES noted that it would then have to be heard a week from Thursday [after Ester break] and suspected that the committee will be no further along than they are today. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN indicated that he would like to offer an amendment. CHAIR JAMES remarked that attorneys are available to assist in a conceptual amendment. CHAIR JAMES called an at-ease at 9:18 and called the meeting back to order at 9:24 a.m. Number 343 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON moved to report CSSSHB 141 (STA) out of committee with individual recommendations. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN removed his objection because he believes his concerns will be addressed by the sponsor. He also indicated that there has been a lack of cooperation with the Administration. Number 364 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA objected to the motion. CHAIR JAMES suggested the Division of Elections list their concerns. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she believes the Administration has done a good job with the time they've been given. Furthermore, none of the members in the committee has had an opportunity to read the new CS with the exception of the chair. She stated that, "This is not a good process, it's passing the buck, this is what makes people stay away from the polls." Representative Kerttula said she strenuously objects to this happening because she believes the work should be done in this committee. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he doesn't believe that there is much public interest. He indicated that HB 141 will either rise or fall on the significant cost of implementing this system. Ultimately it will have to go before the people of Alaska for a vote. Number 412 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that there are still some questions worthy of examination. It's also true that the financial side of this is going to be the major issue. He said he intends to meet with his constituents this week and will talk about the concept and will focus on HB 141. Representative Coghill stated that he won't hold the bill up, but he will be following it. CHAIR JAMES said, "I do believe, when we look at the demographics of the voters in the state, we better find something that's different from what we're doing. And we better find a way to make the people's voice be heard." Number 459 Upon a roll call vote, Representatives Hudson, Ogan, Coghill, and James voted in favor of moving CSSSHB 141 and Representative Kerttula voted against it. Therefore, CSSSHB 141 passed by a vote of 4 to 1. Number 461 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON moved to report the message on the fiscal note out of committee with individual recommendations. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA objected. Upon a roll call vote, Representatives Hudson, Ogan, Coghill, and James voted in favor of moving the message with HB 141 and Representative Kerttula voted against it. Therefore, the message passed by a vote of 4 to 1.