Legislature(2009 - 2010)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/19/2010 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB257 | |
| SB252 | |
| SB92 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 257 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 252 | ||
SB 92-U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION COMPACT
2:15:16 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 92.
2:15:37 PM
SENATOR DAVIS, sponsor of SB 92, said her intern would present
the bill.
QUINN KENDALL, Intern to Senator Davis, read the following
sponsor statement for SB 92 into the record:
Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact,
electoral votes, which are based on the number of U.S.
representatives and U.S. senators in each state, would
be awarded to the national winner, not the state
winner. The U.S. Constitution gives the states
exclusive and plenary control over the matter of
awarding their electoral votes. The winner-take-all
rule is not in the Constitution. The fact that Maine
and Nebraska award electoral votes by congressional
district, is a reminder that an amendment to the U.S.
Constitution is not required to change the way the
president is elected.
As of January 2010, this interstate compact has been
joined by Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, and
Washington. Their 61 electoral votes amount to 23
percent of the 270 votes needed for the compact to
take effect. The bill has also passed in one or both
houses in many states and has continued to gain
support nationally.
Because of the current winner-take-all rule, a
candidate can, and has won the presidency without
winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has
occurred in 4 of the nation's 56 presidential
elections (and 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
nationwide lead of 3.5 million votes.
Another shortcoming of the winner-take-all rule is
that presidential candidates have no reason to poll,
visit, advertise or organize in states where they are
comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In 2008,
candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their
campaign visits and ad money in just six closely
divided "battleground" states. A total of 98 percent
went to just 15 states. In other words, voters in two-
thirds of the states were essentially spectators to
the election.
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 Washington D.C. The bill would take
effect only when enacted by possessing a majority of
the electoral votes - that is, enough electoral votes
to elect a president (270 of 538).
2:19:14 PM
MR. KENDALL said that enacting the National Popular Vote
Interstate Compact will increase political efficacy and civic
engagement in Alaska and throughout the U.S.
CHAIR FRENCH posed a hypothetical situation to show that if just
270 electoral votes were committed to the National Popular Vote
system, a candidate could receive a clear electoral majority
despite the fact that within the states that opted for NPV there
was an overwhelming majority for the other candidate. Some folks
are likely to comment on this possibility, he said.
2:22:28 PM
TRENT ENGLAND, Director, Save our States (SOS) Project,
Washington State, said SOS is dedicated to protecting the
institutions of federalism, one of which is the Electoral
College. He relayed that he often analogizes the Electoral
College to the keel on a sailboat. A self-appointed nautical
reformer may decide that the boat would function very well
without a keel. That would only happen until the wind blows, he
said. The Electoral College does two important things; it has a
nationalizing and unifying affect on politics and it has a
moderating affect.
MR. ENGLAND pointed out that all credible candidates and
political parties start campaigning in the states where they
have significant support and later focus on the swing states.
NPV considers this a problem, but the reality is that swing
states draw politics in toward the center for a unifying affect.
Grover Cleveland learned about the moderating affect of the
Electoral College in 1888 when he won the most votes nationwide
and lost the presidency. The NPV would claim he became a poster
child for how terrible the Electoral College is, but the 1884
vote was based on intense regional popularity rather than having
a broad national coalition. In the four years that Mr. Cleveland
was out of the presidency he rebuilt the democratic coalition
and then recaptured the presidency in 1892, winning both the
national popular vote and the electoral vote. If the national
popular vote system had been in existence at the time, the
Democratic Party might never again have become a national party
or the civil rights coalition that it did. That is all owed to
the Electoral College process, he stated.
2:29:47 PM
JOHN KOZA, Chair, National Popular Vote, point out that voters
in two-thirds of the states are totally ignored by presidential
candidates. Candidates spend 98 percent of their time and money
in just 15 states. States like Alaska are simply ignored when
presidential candidates or a sitting president considers issues,
he said.
2:30:43 PM
ROBERT M. HARDAWAY, Professor of Law, University of Denver,
Sturm College of Law, said he is the author of "The Electoral
College and the Constitution: The Case for Preserving
Federalism." He said his comments would center on the particular
problems with "Koza scheme" and whether or not it's a good idea
to do away with the Electoral College. He asked the following
questions: about what would
1. What would happen under the "Koza scheme" if a recount was
required, but just a handful of states engaged in the
recount?
2. Who would decide what the national popular vote is and what
would happen if a national official and a state officer
disagreed on the vote tally?
3. Would Alaska be bound to accept the popular vote tallies
from states whose voting standards violate Alaska public
policy?
4. Which state officer would be empowered to overrule the will
the voters of Alaska and instead allocate votes to the
other candidate?
5. What would happen if some states decided to withdraw from
the [NPV]?
6. What provision is there in the "Koza scheme" for a runoff
election?
7. If "Koza scheme" supporters want to undermine federalism,
wouldn't the first step be to abolish the U.S. Senate since
it is the more violative of the "one man one vote"
principle?
8. Would the Koza supporters claim that the British system was
undemocratic?
MR. HARDAWAY cited the final committee vote in the Colorado
Legislature and noted that once these problems were pointed out,
Colorado did not adopt the National Popular Vote system. He
further pointed out that national recounts would be particularly
problematic because all 50 states would have to participate.
"Multiply the problems we had in Florida by 50 times," he said.
Minorities have testified against NPV because it dilutes their
voting power, particularly in swing states.
MR. HARDAWAY concluded that the most essential feature of the
Electoral College is that it requires broad-based support.
2:37:34 PM
JAMES GILLES, representing himself, Bird Creek, said he believes
that the National Popular Vote is a good way to go. It's a
system that would finally help Alaska.
2:38:39 PM
JOSEPH F. ZIMMERMAN, Professor of Science, Rockefeller College,
State University of New York at Albany, relayed that when the
Electoral College was established, the assumption was that the
electives in each state would vote for the best candidate, but
that's not the way it has worked. This is a nation of majority
rule yet voters are not allowed to vote directly for
presidential and vice-presidential electives. Furthermore, major
candidates only campaign actively in the so-called swing states.
These are democratic deficits. Former U.S. Justice Felix
Frankfurter and James Landis wrote that the U.S. Constitution
encourages creativeness "to devise a variety of legal
alternatives to cope with the diverse forms on interstate
interests." The National Popular Vote proposal is a creative way
to ensure that this nation has majority rule when it comes to
the selection of the president and vice president of the United
States, he stated.
MR. ZIMMERMAN noted that he is the author of about 40 books,
many on federalism and several on interstate compacts.
2:42:21 PM
DEBBIE JOSLIN, President, Eagle Forum Alaska, Delta Junction,
said that as a patriotic Alaska she opposes SB 92 because it
would make the state irrelevant in the election of the president
and vice president. She recognizes that Alaska has just three
electoral votes, but they have far greater influence than they
would under the National Popular Vote system.
2:44:30 PM
BARRY F. FADEM, President, National Popular Vote, said he enjoys
going state to state having discourse on this issue, but he
finds it somewhat offensive for Professor Hardaway to refer to
this proposal as the "Koza scheme." He noted that some people
have been working on this project for up to four years. Also,
the book he co-authored on the subject has forwards by three
former congressmen and a former senator so he would hope that it
would rise above the level of a scheme. He further noted that
the book deals with much of the misinformation that is
circulating about the NPV proposal.
CHAIR FRENCH asked him to address the question of whether or not
a national recount might be necessary.
MR. FADEM said that under the NPV system recounts would be far
less likely than under the current system. It's the current
system that causes the crises that result when there's a very
close count in just one state as in Florida in 2004. He noted
that in the last 56 presidential elections, just five were close
enough that legal challenges were brought. He reported that the
Washington D.C. based organization called Fair Vote studied
7,645 statewide elections and found that the probability of a
recount was one every 332 elections. Using those statistics, the
chances of a recount occurring under NPV would be once every
1,328 years. But what's more important, he said, is that under
the current system there are literally 51 separate elections
each time there's a national election.
2:49:00 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked him to respond to the argument that changing
to the NPV system would require an amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
MR. FADEM replied the founding Fathers gave state legislatures
the right to determine how to award electoral votes so it's a
state's rights issue. If a state feels that the president should
be elected by the NPV, it has the right to do that. He noted
that 70 percent of the 800 some voters polled in Alaska said
they favored the National Popular Vote. He opined that it's a
landslide if 70 percent of voters agree on anything today.
2:51:22 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked him to read the poll question.
MR. FADEM said the question asked, "How do you think we should
elect the president? Should it be the candidate who gets the
most votes in all 50 states or the current Electoral College
system?"
CHAIR FRENCH commented that he almost asked each witness if they
believe that the candidate with the most votes should be
elected, but it seems rather unfair because who would oppose
that.
SENATOR COGHILL remarked that he thinks people might have a
different response if they understand that the majority vote of
the nation might take their state's votes.
CHAIR FRENCH said he doesn't disagree.
MR. FADEM said that a recent focus group asked if whoever gets
the most votes in all 50 states should become president. The
answer was, "Well, duh; it's the American way, it's the
democratic system."
2:53:39 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked how many different state compacts there are
since the issue is whether or not this can be done by state
compact.
MR. FADEM replied there are literally thousands; it's a very
common vehicle for states to use when they agree upon something.
He knows that every state is in at least one compact with all 50
states. The issues include environmental, juvenile justice,
education, and child support.
MR. FADEM concluded saying the states that have very few
electoral votes are the poster child for how bad the current
system is; that's why Hawaii was one of the first states to join
the compact. They understood that, just like Alaska, their votes
as a non-battleground state do not count.
2:55:48 PM
TARA ROSS, representing herself, said she is the author of
"Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College." The
NPV proposal asks states like Alaska to give their electors to
the winner of the national popular vote rather than the winner
on their own state's vote. This plan would practically eliminate
the Electoral College, which would do more harm than is
generally appreciated. She noted that she outlined her reasoning
in written testimony she submitted.
MS. ROSS expressed the view that eliminating the Electoral
College by implementing SB 92 carries special logistical
dangers. She supports the Electoral College but if it is to be
eliminated it should be done through the constitutional
amendment process. The compact contemplated by SB 92 would
require participating states to award their electors to the
candidate winning the largest National Popular Vote total. Under
this scheme, Alaska could be forced to commit its electors to a
candidate who was not on the ballot. There are other
inconsistencies among states ballots that could skew election
results. For example, some states allow felons to vote, whereas
Alaska does not. Inevitably Alaska would have to abide by
national election results derived from policies with which it
does not agree.
MS. ROSS said it's a big assumption that recounts wouldn't
happen under the popular vote scheme as has been claimed. If
there were recounts, huge problems would result because of the
differences in state recounting statutes. Voters would
inevitably be disenfranchised and there would be chaos and
litigation each and every election year. She said she focused on
the logistical problems because they aren't given enough
attention, but the proposal has philosophical problems as well.
She believes that formally eliminating the Electoral College in
any manner would be unhealthy for the country.
3:00:46 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if under the current system a
candidate could win with just 15 percent of the nationwide vote.
MS. ROSS replied she doesn't see how that could happen because
of the current, strong two-party system, which forces political
parties and candidates to compromise. She noted that a professor
once said that nobody gets their first-choice candidate, but
lots of people get their second choice because presidential
candidates have to build concurrent majorities to win.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said it's also the case that under the
current system a candidate who is not on the ballot in Alaska
could win.
MS. ROSS disagreed; the case today is that Alaska's three
electorates will cast their votes for whomever qualifies for the
ballot.
CHAIR FRENCH announced he would hold SB 92 for a future hearing.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB_257_Sponsor_Statement.pdf |
SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM SJUD 2/19/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 257 |
| SB 257 Juneau DistCourt LOS.pdf |
SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM SJUD 2/19/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 257 |
| SB257 Letter of Support.pdf |
SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM SJUD 2/19/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 257 |
| SB257 Ketchikan Magistrate LOS.pdf |
SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM SJUD 2/19/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 257 |
| SB257 JYC Bd LOS.doc |
SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM SJUD 2/19/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 257 |
| SB92 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SJUD 2/19/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 92 |
| SB 92 Sectional.pdf |
SJUD 2/19/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 92 |
| SB92 Press.pdf |
SJUD 2/19/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 92 |
| SB92 Letters of Support.pdf |
SFIN 3/26/2010 1:30:00 PM SJUD 2/19/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 92 |
| Wasilla PD LOS.pdf |
SFIN 3/12/2010 9:00:00 AM SJUD 2/19/2010 1:30:00 PM |
SB 257 |