Legislature(2009 - 2010)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/12/2010 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB92 | |
| SB239 | |
| SB284 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 239 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 284 | ||
SB 92-U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION COMPACT
1:37:45 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 92. The bill was
heard previously.
1:38:15 PM
GRANT W. HUNTER, representing himself, stated opposition to SB
92 because he can think of no reason that persons who are not
entitled to vote in Alaska elections should be allowed to decide
how Alaska casts its electoral votes in presidential elections.
Furthermore, he said it isn't proper for one legislature to
decide how electoral votes shall be used in future elections. In
each election this decision should be made by a vote of the
people entitled to vote in Alaska elections and subject to the
electoral procedures provided by law in this state.
MR. HUNTER said he is familiar with the argument that the
majority of the people should elect the President, but Article
II and Amendment 12 of the U.S. Constitution provide for the
electoral votes to make that choice. Since 1860 it's been the
practice in all but two states that the popular vote in a given
state determines how the electors shall be chosen. Those two
states divide their electoral votes by Congressional district
and in practice they wouldn't have made a difference, he
submitted.
MR. HUNTER cited and disputed different arguments for the
national popular vote including better representation of
minority views and the 2000 presidential election when the
national popular vote was not the same as the electoral vote.
What it really comes down to, he said, is that the legislature
has no business giving away the votes of Alaskans in future
elections. It may even violate the Voting Rights Act. He noted
that he submitted an email supporting his views.
1:45:27 PM
PAT STIDMAN, representing himself, stated support for SB 92.
Ours is a transforming democracy that is becoming more available
to each and every citizen, and to protect this each individual
vote must be counted, he said. There have been times when the
will of the people has been overridden because of the Electoral
College system, he warned. I urge you to pass this bill and get
on with democracy, he concluded.
1:47:39 PM
RALPH STEVENSON, representing himself, stated support for SB 92.
The national popular vote issue is simple and goes to the core
of this nation's foundation. It is one vote for one person. When
the country was young, rural areas needed assistance to achieve
voting parity with the population centers, but that's no longer
the case. The national popular vote will ensure just one thing,
and that is that every voter will be important and every vote
will be equal. Never would a president be elected who does not
reflect the most votes cast by the populous. Finally, he said,
in this time of hyper-partisanship, this proposal enjoys a
strong spectrum of bipartisan support. "It's only right that
Alaska take up this measure," he concluded.
1:49:37 PM
JEFF WORTHY, representing himself, stated support for SB 92 and
the national popular vote. He opined that the electoral vote and
that of the Electoral College should mirror the national vote
for president. He thanked the committee for taking the time to
look at this issue.
CHAIR FRENCH noted that Barry Fadem testified previously but he
was available if the committee had questions for him.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked Mr. Fadem his opinion of the concern
that some people have that this wouldn't help small states like
Alaska.
MR. FADEM, President, National Popular Vote, replied Alaska
receives no attention in a presidential election because it
isn't closely divided; it has nothing to do with the fact that
it has just three electoral votes. It's that Alaska and other
small electoral states are not closely divided. They are not
battleground states. The purpose of the national popular vote
proposal is to make a vote in Alaska just as valuable as a vote
in a closely divided, battleground state, like New Hampshire and
Ohio. He pointed out that the 12 non-battleground small states
have a combined voter population of 11.5 million and Ohio has
about that same number of voters. These 12 small states have 40
electoral votes among them, whereas Ohio has 20 electoral votes.
In the 2008 election Ohio received 62 of 300 election visits
while the 12 small states, including Alaska, received just 2
visits. He reiterated that if the national popular vote proposal
passes, a vote in Alaska would become just as important as a
vote cast in Ohio.
CHAIR FRENCH closed public testimony.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to report SB 92 from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s).
1:53:33 PM
SENATOR COGHILL objected. He said he's tried to stay open, but
after a lot of thought he's concluded that this isn't the right
thing go do. We should stay focused on the fact that this is a
republic and that this proposal would change Alaska to a more
populist democratic structure. I prefer to maintain a republic
democratic focus, he said.
SENATOR COGHILL said he's also looked at the statistical issues
and has come to the conclusion that this would diminish Alaska's
vote capacity almost by half. "I don't see where we gain and I
see where we probably lose more of the Tenth Amendment issues
that protect us as a nation of states." He acknowledged that the
winner take all issue caused him pause, but even under this
compact it would still be the winner take all. It's just that
Alaskans would surrender their vote to somebody else. In fact,
the Alaska popular vote may be overruled under this proposal.
SENATOR COGHILL pointed out that Alaska assign its electoral
votes by a popular vote to Alaskans who assign the winner take
all. The winner take all on this compact would be no different
so we don't gain anything. "I'm going to stick with what I think
is probably the best federalist approach and that is a nation of
states. We're certainly a nation of people, but even in the
Preamble to the Constitution it's 'We the people of the United
States'" and I want to keep it that way so I'm going to vote
'No' on this bill," he concluded.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he isn't sure how he'd vote if he had
to push the up or down button today but there have been good
arguments on both sides, which is healthy for the democracy. He
clarified that his motion is to move the bill on to the next
committee for further debate. He said he'll give the bill a "No
Recommendation" as it leaves the committee, but he firmly
believes that moving it on is the best course of action.
1:57:08 PM
A roll call vote was taken. The motion to report SB 92 from
committee passed on a 3:1 vote with Senator Wielechowski,
Senator McGuire and Senator French voting yea and Senator
Coghill voting nay.
CHAIR FRENCH announced that on a vote of 3:1, SB 92 moves from
the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|