Legislature(2009 - 2010)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/26/2010 01:30 PM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB92 | |
| SB264 | |
| SB234 |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 300 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 302 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 234 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 264 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE BILL NO. 92
"An Act ratifying an interstate compact to elect the
President and Vice-President of the United States by
national popular vote; and making related changes to
statutes applicable to the selection by voters of
electors for candidates for President and Vice-
President of the United States and to the duties of
those electors."
1:39:36 PM
Co-Chair Stedman introduced SB 92.
QUINN KENDALL, STAFF, SENATOR BETTYE DAVIS, discussed the
legislation.
The U.S. Constitution gives each state exclusive
control over the manner of awarding each state's
electoral votes. The current winner-take-all rule
practiced by 48 states is not in the constitution. The
fact that Maine and Nebraska award electoral votes by
Congressional district, is a reminder that electing a
president is a state's right issue, and does not
require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
bill, all the electoral votes from the enacting states
would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential
candidate who receives the most popular votes in all
50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only
when enacted by states possessing a majority of the
electoral votes - that is 270 of 538, enough electoral
votes to elect a President.
During previous hearings the question has been raised
"Will a National Popular Vote be good for small
populated states like Alaska?" The answer to this
question is emphatically 'yes,' it would be tremendous
for a state like Alaska. And with your indulgence,
I'll briefly explain why.
Our relevance as a state in electing the President is
governed solely by whether we are "winnable" or "not"
to a candidate. In other words, are we a
"battleground" state, like Iowa, Florida, Ohio and New
Hampshire? In those states, the vote for President,
are very close, and therefore candidates' allot
copious amounts of campaign resources to win those
states. In Alaska there are no similar efforts taken
by candidates because we are not a closely contested
state. In fact, Alaska has not been visited by a
presidential candidate since Kennedy and Nixon arrived
over 50 years ago.
Additional evidence supports the need for SB 92s
passage. In past elections candidates have won the
Presidency without winning the most popular votes
nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 56
presidential elections (or, 1 in 7 of the non-
landslide elections). In 2004, a shift of fewer than
60,000 votes in Ohio would have defeated President
Bush despite his substantial nationwide lead of 3 ½
million votes.
In conclusion, SB 92s sole purpose is to ensure that a
small populated state like ours would have hundreds of
thousands of votes that are Winnable, Important, and
Valuable to a presidential candidate. And ultimately,
whether its campaign spending in Alaska, or attention
being paid to our important states issues, the
National Popular Vote system is undeniably better for
Alaska.
1:43:44 PM
Senator Olson asked about the effect this legislation has
on minority groups throughout the nation. Mr. Kendall
responded that with this bill, each and every vote counts.
Senator Huggins asked if the function of the legislation is
to eliminate the Electoral College. Mr. Kendall answered
no.
Senator Huggins asked what the function of the Electoral
College would be under this legislation. Mr. Kendall
responded that with the Electoral College, each state is
designated a certain number of electoral votes. Each state
sends their electoral votes to the winner of the most votes
nationwide. Senator Huggins suggested that if the total
vote count has been tallied, then the Electoral College
would exist as a formality. Mr. Kendall agreed that the
Electoral College would be a formality.
1:46:18 PM
Senator Thomas struggled with the distinction this formula
provides when compared to the current method.
Senator Olson understood that a pool of states is joined by
the compact. He concluded that if Alaska joins the compact,
then electoral votes are added to the pool of compacted
states.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for an explanation of the compact
along with a list of states included. He asked about
marginalization for Alaska. Mr. Kendall responded that the
compact cannot be enacted until 270 electoral votes are
met. Currently there are five states enacting similar
legislation: Hawaii, Washington, Maryland, New Jersey, and
Illinois. Many people wonder how this bill will affect
Alaska as electoral votes were originally designed to
represent states with small populations. He noted that
Wyoming, which is also a small state, has three and one
half times more power in their Electoral College vote
compared to their population. Florida is inundated with
campaign visits because they are a battleground state. He
opined that the Electoral College is not working for Alaska
therefore Presidential Candidates do not care about
campaigning here.
1:50:46 PM
Senator Huggins estimated that the "best guarantee Alaska
has to get a Presidential candidate to visit is to have a
Presidential candidate."
CAM CARLSON, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
testified in opposition to the legislation. She opined that
the United States does not have a basic democracy, but
instead a representative republic. She stressed that the
legislation eliminates one of the country's basic forms of
government.
RANDY GRIFFIN, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
testified in opposition to SB 92. He explained that he
likes the Electoral College system because it accentuates
state boundaries and rights. He opined that state liberties
were at risk and the federal government has taken too much
power. The electoral system does benefit small states
because we get three electors to match the congressional
delegation, which he opined was generous in comparison to
the population.
1:56:24 PM
RALPH STEVENSON, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of SB 92. He stressed the need for
legislation that allows each person's vote to count. The
national popular vote ensures that each individual's voice
is heard in a federal Presidential election. He believed
that the bill is right for Alaska and the compact is right
for our country.
TRENT ENGLAND, SAVE OUR STATE PROJECT, WASHINGTON (via
teleconference), testified in favor of the legislation. He
noted that the issue reaches far beyond the boundaries of
each state. He opined that presidential elections
recalibrate politics every four years. He discussed the
interstate compact, which he deemed extremely fragile
because it is not a change to the constitution.
TARA ROSS, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified
in opposition to the legislation. She stated that a
nationwide discussion regarding the elimination of the
Electoral College is necessary. Alaska could be forced to
award its entire slate of electors to a candidate who is
not on the ballot. She cited further inconsistencies that
might skew election results.
2:03:15 PM
JIM GILLEF, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified
in support of the legislation. He believed that the bill
allows the majority to rule and pulls the states together
increasing state's rights.
STEPHAN PETERSON, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of SB 92. He stated that the
constitution is an evolving and living document. He
stressed that it is time for every citizen to be counted.
2:05:29 PM
DEBBIE JOSLIN, EAGLE FORUM ALASKA, DELTA JUNCTION (via
teleconference), testified in opposition to the
legislation. She opined that SB 92 would eliminate rights
for Alaskans to have a meaningful part in the election of
the President. Alaska's electors are pledged to vote for
the person who wins the national popular vote.
ROB CARLSON, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
testified in opposition of the legislation. He noted that
the bill would undermine Alaska's three electoral votes.
2:09:17 PM AT EASE
2:09:37 PM RECONVENE
BARRY FADEM, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE, testified in
support of the legislation. He discussed the minority
issue. The National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP) supports the national popular vote
proposal because African Americans in battleground states
represented 72 percent in 1976, which fell to 34 percent
for the last election. Hispanic groups face the same
dilemma. Issues for states without proper representation
due to their size are never discussed during presidential
campaigns. Six of the states are red and six are blue. He
believed that a vote cast in Juneau should be as important
as a vote cast in Miami, Florida. The size of the state is
irrelevant. Whether or not it is a battleground state is
the determining factor. He spoke to the argument that the
legislation eliminates the Electoral College. He stated
that the allegations were false. He believed that the
Electoral College is a rubberstamp for the vote in each of
the fifty states. The founding fathers decided in their
immanent wisdom to give state legislatures the power to
decide how to award the electoral votes. Under the
legislation's proposal, state action determines the method
of the election process. All reform regarding Presidential
elections begins at the state level.
2:13:52 PM
REX GOOLSBY, SELF, TOK (via teleconference), testified in
opposition of the legislation. The compromise of creating
the Electoral College was for the protection of small
states. He opined that the passage of the proposal would
benefit the states with large population centers.
2:19:23 PM
Co-Chair Stedman mentioned one zero fiscal note.
Mr. Kendall thanked the committee for the opportunity to
testify on behalf of SB 92. He stated that the goal of the
legislation was to benefit the entire country.
SB 92 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB92 Press[1].pdf |
SFIN 3/26/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 92 |
| SB92 Sponsor Statement[1].pdf |
SFIN 3/26/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 Sectional[1].pdf |
SFIN 3/26/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 92 |
| SB 264 2010 HB 159 2003 backup.pdf |
SFIN 3/26/2010 1:30:00 PM |
HB 159 SB 264 |
| SB 264 2010 Payments for Examinations.pdf |
SFIN 3/26/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 264 |
| SB 264 2010 Sectional.pdf |
SFIN 3/26/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 264 |
| SB 264 2010 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SFIN 3/26/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 264 |
| SB92 Letters of Support.pdf |
SFIN 3/26/2010 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/19/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 92 |
| SB 264 CFAB Mar 2003 Ltr HB 159.pdf |
SFIN 3/26/2010 1:30:00 PM |
HB 159 SB 264 |
| SB 264 Support Letter Huppert 2010.pdf |
SFIN 3/26/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 264 |
| SB 92 RNC letter of support.pdf |
SFIN 3/26/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 92 |
| SB92 Letters of Support[1].pdf |
SFIN 3/26/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 National Popular Vote 2010.pdf |
SFIN 3/26/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 92 |