Legislature(1999 - 2000)
05/02/2000 10:55 AM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 314-LIMIT NAMES ON GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT
SENATOR DONLEY explained that SB 314 will amend the Alaska
statutes to adopt a different system to determine which
candidates will make it to the general election ballot. The top
two vote getters in the primary election for the governor's race
would appear on the general election ballot. Likewise, the top
two vote getters for the office of lieutenant governor would
appear with them, as required by the Constitution, on the general
election ballot. SB 314 addresses the issue of access to the
general election ballot by saying that while a candidate can
access the primary ballot via a petition, the only names that can
appear on the general election ballot are the top two vote
getters in the primary.
MR. JIM BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, stated SB 314 would
have the effect of turning the race of governor into a non-
partisan election. If two Republicans, for example, were the
high vote getters in the primary election, they would be the
candidates for the general election. He questioned how this
approach will square with the pending decision of the U.S.
Supreme Court regarding the open primary, specifically if the
court rules against the open primary. He asked whether another
process would have to be instituted by the political parties
leading up to what is now the primary for the office of governor,
such as a pre-nomination.
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL BALDWIN said the second problem
created by SB 314 is that its provisions would be placed in AS
15.25, a set of statutes designed to provide for the nomination
of candidates. No change, however, will be made to AS 15.25.110,
which gives one of those candidates the power to withdraw from an
election, and it gives the power to the party committee, through
the party nomination process, to replace that candidate. Without
a change to that statutory scheme, a candidate who received
26,000 votes in the primary election could become the person who
is nominated at the general election.
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL BALDWIN noted another potential
problem is third party access to the ballot. At one time, Joe
Vogler, an Alaska Independent Party representative, took the
Department of Law to task over the question of third party
access. The statute governing that access had a very high bar.
He expressed concern that SB 314 will prevent third parties from
accessing the general election ballot which will expose the State
to litigation. The AIP fought hard in the Vogler case and
succeeded in establishing a third party's right to access on the
general ballot. The Alaska courts have been inclined to protect
third party rights to access.
Number 510
MS. GAIL FENUMIAI, Elections Specialist, Division of Elections,
said after a cursory review of the legislation she has several
questions. She asked whether Section 1 will allow write-in
candidates to have equal access to the ballot in the general
election. She expressed concern that SB 314 might disenfranchise
a write-in candidate's ability to run a successful campaign. It
appears that Section 1 eliminates the possibility that a write-in
candidate could run for governor or lieutenant governor.
SENATOR DONLEY responded that Section 1 eliminates that
possibility only for the general election.
MS. FENUMIAI explained that write-in candidates for governor and
lieutenant governor are only allowed to run in the general
election.
MS. FENUMIAI noted that Section 2 of SB 314, which deals with
placing nominees on the general election ballot for all other
offices, reads, "the name of the candidate receiving the highest
number of votes for an office by a political party." She asked
if that means each political party so that the highest vote
getter in each party for each office advances to the general
election ballot.
SENATOR DONLEY replied if Ms. Fenumiai is asking whether Section
2 maintains the status quo for all candidates other than the
governor and lieutenant governor, the answer is yes.
MS. FENUMIAI asked if only one candidate runs for the office of
lieutenant governor whether that candidate would run with both of
the gubernatorial candidates if they were all in the same party.
SENATOR DONLEY explained the one candidate would run with both
but it would be an easy option to go to the second highest vote
getter for lieutenant governor.
MS. FENUMIAI asked what would occur if there was no second
candidate from that party and whether the second highest vote
getter for the gubernatorial race would appear on the ballot
alone.
SENATOR DONLEY said under existing statute that party could
nominate a candidate to fill the gap.
MS. FENUMIAI asked if Section 4 applies the same provisions of
Section 3 to no party candidates, basically petition candidates.
SENATOR DONLEY agreed.
SENATOR ELLIS pointed out that representatives of the Alaska
Republican Party were present. He asked Chairman Taylor whether
he invited representatives from the Republican Moderate Party or
the AIP to attend the meeting.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR replied he invited no one. He added that Mr.
Mark Chryson of the AIP and Mr. Sykes were listening via
teleconference.
Number 810
MR. MARK CHRYSON, Alaska Independent Party, stated the AIP has
several concerns about SB 314. As Mr. Baldwin said, Mr. Vogler
took the State of Alaska to court and won. Alaska is unique in
that it has six political parties. The definition of a political
party requires it to have 6,000 registered voters or to receive
three percent of the vote in the gubernatorial election. He
asked if Senator Donley's intent is to eliminate all parties
except the Republican and Democratic parties.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR replied SB 314 was introduced at the request of
the Senate Majority so that the legislature could take a look at
other options. He noted the provision pertaining to a majority
of the votes for election of the governor is having a difficult
time on the House side.
MR. CHRYSON said in effect, if SB 314 passes, the legislature
will be outlawing any parties other than the Republican or
Democratic Parties. It will eliminate ballot access. He said he
is not opposed to runoff elections or the instant runoff that has
been proposed, and believes that would solve the problems cited
earlier. He stated this bill is being heard too late in the
session to allow for comments from around the State. He
suggested that the committee kill the bill. He noted the
Libertarian Party also believes the bill should be shelved.
MS. DEE DEE BENNIS, representing the Bristol Bay Native
Association, stated SB 314 could negatively impact minority
voters. She believes that proposing a major change to the
election laws during the last week of the legislative session
without adequate review is rash and irresponsible. Rural
Alaskans will oppose SB 314 until the full light of public review
is allowed.
MR. MICHAEL JUMP, representing himself, echoed Ms. Bennis'
comments. He opposes SB 314 because it will negatively impact
the ability of minority voters to have a choice for the offices
of governor and lieutenant governor in the general election.
Rural Alaska needs to have the greatest influence that it can in
choosing its governor and lieutenant governor. He is also
concerned about the ability of third party candidates to get on
the general election ballot.
MS. APRIL FERGUSON, representing the Bristol Bay Native
Corporation, stated opposition to SB 314, primarily because of
the process it is undergoing. She received the sponsor statement
two minutes ago and, although it is part of her job to review
legislation, she cannot respond to legislation she only became
aware of 30 minutes ago. She believes the public was given the
absolute minimum meeting notice possible. SB 314 makes
significant changes to Alaska's election process. Most villagers
do not have e-mail or access to BASIS therefore representatives
of smaller communities will not have the chance to comment on
this legislation. Passing legislation at a dead run excludes
Native people from the political process. BBNC wants its members
to have the opportunity to participate and comment. SB 314 would
have prevented a very popular governor, Wally Hickel, from
participating in office. She expressed concern that Mr. Baldwin
and Ms. Fenumiai only received a copy of this legislation last
night and have not had adequate time to analyze it. She
respectfully asked committee members to "kill" the bill.
MR. JIM SYKES, Executive Director of the Alaska Public Interest
Research Group (AKPIRG) and a representative of the Green Party,
stated he was unaware of this legislation until minutes before
the hearing. He totally agrees with those testifying who
criticized this process. This subject affects all Alaskans and
deserves wide and deep public consideration and debate. For that
reason alone, the bill should not go forward. SB 314 smacks of a
shortcut to the Louisiana system which has one of the most
politically corrupt histories in the entire system of state
elections. Alaskans want more open government, not closed
government. A number of U.S. court decisions, regarding fouled
access, generally provide more access to the general election,
not less. SB 314 restricts the general election ballot in a very
discriminatory and unfair way for small parties. He fails to see
the logic of why the bill has the highest vote getters of every
political party for congressional seats placed on the ballot but
it restricts the candidates for governor and lieutenant governor.
He fails to see why that distinction is made because the
congressional offices are equally important to the governor in
terms of a statewide vote.
MR. SYKES said if one goes back to the court decisions regarding
primary elections, one will see that a primary election is the
process by which candidates are nominated for the general
election. In Alaska, political parties are prohibited from
nominating their own candidates at the convention. The Alaska
Court has upheld that parties are only able to nominate
candidates for political parties via the open blanket primary.
To assume that a candidate could be nominated and then be unable
to run in the general election is a violation of the
constitutional right of freedom of political association. He
questioned how this legislation could be brought forward when it
is such a clear violation.
MR. SYKES stated if a political party is required to get three
percent of the vote at a general election but is unable to
participate in that general election when its candidate is not
one of the two highest vote getters, that creates a political fix
that would toss this system on its ear in a second. The only
situation in which a fair election could occur under SB 314 is
with the instant runoff vote. He noted he cannot speak for or
against that as a representative of AKPIRG, so he will end his
testimony for that organization and testify as a representative
of the Green Party.
MR. SYKES indicated the Green Party introduced instant runoff
voting to the House State Affairs Committee in 1991 as a way of
building majority, recognizing that candidates were being elected
with fewer and fewer votes. That bill is again being considered
and heard, which is more than can be said for SB 314. If the
Senate Majority's intent is to build a majority, it needs to take
another look at instant runoff voting in which the primary and
general elections could be rolled into one, eliminating the need
for the runoff. The fiscal note attached to the instant runoff
election bill was quite high because it contains a one-time cost
to educate the voters. He stated he does not see how SB 314 can
possibly go forward, considering any of the federal or state
court decisions. He repeated that he opposes the bill as a
representative of AKPIRG, as a representative of the Green Party,
and as a citizen of Alaska.
Number 1486
SENATOR ELLIS commented that he believes that many more people
would want to testify on SB 314 if they knew about it but due to
the late date of the session, they will be unable to.
SENATOR DONLEY said he appreciates the testimony given today. He
stated he believes the committee needs to work on the issue of
what will happen if only one candidate runs for lieutenant
governor. He noted that will only be a problem if the top two
vote getters in the primary are from the same party. He
suggested three solutions. First, place the second highest vote
getter from that party with the second highest vote getter for
governor; second, place the top vote getter with both; or third,
allow the party to place a candidate on the ballot. He also said
he thinks the concern raised about the three percent of votes
requirement for parties is valid and should be addressed. In
addition, he suggested that legal research of case law regarding
write-in votes on a general election should be conducted.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR agreed and stated that several aspects of SB 314
need further refinement.
SENATOR DONLEY suggested that the committee continue to work on
this legislation.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if this legislation will be considered during
the interim and stated he will not support it if it passes out of
committee at this time.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR stated that serious questions have been raised
about SB 314 and he wants the opportunity to look at the
legislation further.
Number 1685
[During the remainder of the meeting, the committee discussed the
articles of impeachment regarding various judges. Upon request, a
verbatim transcript was prepared.]
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yesterday we received referral of 30 Articles of
Impeachment on various judges across the state - all of the
Supreme Court and most of the Superior Court judges in both
Fairbanks and Anchorage - the third and fourth judicial
districts. They appear to be technical in nature but I can't
make a cursory review of that upon which anyone would want to
base anything and that would only be my opinion as concerns those
allegations also. With the limited amount of time left in the
session, I sincerely doubt that the committee has either the
resources or the energy to move forward at this point in
investigating those matters or holding hearings on those matters
and, in fact, I think there's an inherent conflict if the
committee or its staff were to be doing that type of an
investigation in that we also are the ones that would then have
to sit in judgment not only in this committee, but also on the
floor of any such bill that came up. And that's why those who
have gone through the process before, Congress included, just
most recently the Judiciary Committee in the House with Mr. Hyde
- the committee to whom the special prosecutor reported. We're
also talking about a significant expenditure of state resources
if this matter is to be fully and thoroughly resolved. Though
it's going to be my recommendation, at least to the committee,
that we respond back to the President with at least a memorandum
indicating those concerns and asking for her reconsideration of
the referral or for further direction from the leadership as to
the expenditure of funds and resources on this matter. This
committee will cease existence for all intents and purposes upon
the sine die motion of this legislative session.
SENATOR ELLIS: Mr. Chairman, would you be willing to circulate
that memo to committee members in draft form?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Oh, absolutely. I'm still working on it and
will be happy to do that. If there are comments by the committee
members, I'd sure appreciate hearing those too.
SENATOR HALFORD: What is the next step for the advocates?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: There really is no next step. It all depends
upon the action taken by the Senate President. They are allowed
to lodge those as citizens with the Senate. It is up to the
President, then, to decide what referrals and what actions should
be taken on them.
SENATOR HALFORD: Precedent?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: None that I'm aware of. This is somewhat of an
historic application of the law. There isn't much precedent.
The only precedent we really have around here is the impeachment
of Governor Sheffield, or the attempted impeachment of Governor
Sheffield, and that was also a very expensive and energy-
consuming process. But if, in fact, our Constitution is to have
any meaning, and these laws are to have any meaning, the citizen
does have the right to file such an application and then the
discretion of the Chair within the Senate, I believe, then
controls the actions that would be taken from that point forward
and then of course the discretion or discernment of the body and
the various committees that would approach it. I think we can
very quickly find ourselves in a process that may consume a great
deal of time and energy and I just wanted to raise those
concerns. I think there's some inherent conflict concerns. When
you start having a special prosecutor within the state who is a
state attorney serving under the very same people being
investigated - I think there are lots of inherent conflicts and
problems within this process that may involve reaching to outside
counsel - people outside of the state. It could be a very
involved process or it could be merely a matter of technical or
procedural matters that could be more easily addressed. But, in
either instance, we're looking at a significant volume of
material that has been provided to us and we need to make some
decision about how we're going to address it. So I will try to
circulate a memo to the members and get back to the Chair on this
before the conclusion of the session.
SENATOR HALFORD: With some kind of staff analysis on this?
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: Yes, and I think that may help us more than
anything else. There's already been staff analysis done by legal
counsel for the Majority but I would like to have a further
review of that by Leg [Legislative] Council so that we'd all have
an opportunity ....
SENATOR HALFORD: Yes, I'd like to know what their response is.
CHAIRMAN TAYLOR: And with that, I appreciate everybody's
attendance today. We have not moved the bill, Mr. Sykes, you'll
be happy about that as will Mr. Chryson, I'm sure. Thank you all
for your attendance and your patience . We're adjourned.
[END OF MEETING.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|