Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/20/1999 02:00 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 20, 1999
2:00 P.M.
TAPE HFC 99 - 88, Side 1.
TAPE HFC 99 - 88, Side 2.
TAPE HFC 99 - 89, Side 1.
TAPE HFC 99 - 89, Side 2.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Therriault called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 2:00 P.M.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Foster
Co-Chair Mulder Representative Grussendorf
Vice Chair Bunde Representative Kohring
Representative Austerman Representative G. Davis
Representative J. Davies Representative Williams
Representative Moses was not present for the meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Pete Kott; Kelly Sullivan, Staff,
Representative Pete Kott; Gerald Luckhaupt, Attorney,
Legislative Legal and Research Services; Steve Hill,
(Testified via Teleconference), Director, Center for Voting
Democracy, San Francisco; Chris Cooke, (Testified via
Teleconference), Chair, Alaska Democratic Party, Bethel;
Gail Fenumiai, Election Program Specialist, Division of
Elections, Office of the Lt. Governor; Kathleen Strasbaugh,
Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law; Craig Black,
Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law; John
Lindback, Chief of Staff, Office of the Lt. Governor; Larry
Hurlock, Self, Juneau.
SUMMARY
HB 43 An Act relating to police training surcharges
imposed for violations of municipal ordinances.
HB 43 was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with zero fiscal notes by
the Department of Community and Regional Affairs
dated 3/5/99 and Department of Public Safety dated
3/5/99.
HB 141 An Act providing for preferential voting in state
and local elections.
HB 141 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 43
An Act relating to police training surcharges imposed
for violations of municipal ordinances.
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS commented that the Police Training
Fund was established to provide training for the law
enforcement and corrections community of the State.
Appropriations to this fund may be made from income derived
from the imposition of surcharges on criminal convictions.
Last year, legislation was passed expanding the types of
crimes for which a surcharge is imposed and increasing the
amount of the surcharge applied. The surcharge would be
imposed on both state and municipal law violations.
Representative G. Davis noted that recently, concern was
raised that the phrasing used in the legislation could be
interpreted as requiring surcharges to be imposed on civil
as well as criminal violations of the law. Additionally, it
was argued that if a local government did not authorize the
imposition of a surcharge, an entire ordinance could be
found invalid rather than just the section imposing the
fine.
Representative G. Davis pointed out that HB 43 is a
housecleaning measure to address two concerns. First, the
legislation clarifies that the surcharge will be imposed on
a violation of a municipal ordinance that imposes a criminal
penalty for its violation. Second, the legislation
specifies that the municipality can not enforce a penalty
for a violation unless the municipality also authorizes the
imposition of a surcharge on the violation.
Representative J. Davies asked the difference between
enforcing a penalty for the ordinance and enforcing the
ordinance. Co-Chair Therriault suggested that the problem
results from the fact that the ordinance addresses an array
of conditions, and the overall ordinance creates a
possibility of imposing a penalty. The bill stipulates that
if the penalty is not imposed, none of the ordinance can be
enforced.
GERALD LUCKHAUPT, ATTORNEY, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL AND RESEARCH
SERVICES explained that the issue is that some
municipalities are concerned that their ordinances offer a
broad range of activities which could include penalties
which differ from the statutes. A municipality could adopt
an ordinance which contains the entire code. The
municipalities were concerned that this meant that they
could not enforce their entire ordinance if the surcharge
was not imposed on the penalty.
Mr. Luckhaupt pointed out that there are two ways that the
ordinances could be enforced, either through a criminal
process or through a civil process, both of which are
available to municipalities. The proposed legislation only
applies to the criminal process. The municipalities could
still choose to use a civil enforcement mechanism to file
suit and get an injunction.
Additionally, Mr. Luckhaupt noted that the ordinance could
include other concerns and that one should not enforce a
penalty for which a surcharge is required on a municipal
ordinance that is enforced through the criminal process.
That understanding addresses the enforcement concern.
Co-Chair Therriault discussed that the collected surcharges
would be placed into the Police Training Fund.
Representative G. Davis added that those funds would be
available to municipal police forces, VPSO's, correctional
officers and troopers. Representative G. Davis explained
those funds would not be used for training of animal control
officers.
Mr. Luckhaupt stated that the bill addresses two very narrow
concerns. He noted that Representative G. Davis wanted to
assuage any municipal concerns with regards to this act.
This would apply to both civil and criminal enforcement
mechanisms within a municipality, which he disagreed with.
Additional language was added to Page 2, Lines 4 & 5,
imposing a penalty authorized by AS 29.25.070(a), the
statute which clarifies municipalities adopt criminal
penalties for violations of ordinances applying to the
entire ordinance.
Representative Foster asked if a "municipality" would
include a village. Mr. Luckhaupt explained that a
municipality is a borough or city organized under present
statutes and that an unincorporated village would not be
included.
Co-Chair Therriault clarified that if an area were a
village, that village would not be paying into the
surcharge, however, their VPSO's would be able to access the
training funds.
Mr. Luckhaupt explained that VPSO's are peace officers. The
Peace Officer Training Fund is basically designed for peace
officer training. VPSO's are considered peace officers for
purposes of Title 1; however, there is a question if they
are actually peace officers in that they don't have the
power to enforce laws. That information makes this section
a bit "fuzzy". If the municipality was incorporated and had
their own police force, they would clearly be entitled to
money from the fund. Grants for VPSO's are made
independently to Native Corporations in order to set up
programs.
Representative G. Davis MOVED to report HB 43 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
HB 43 was reported out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with zero fiscal notes by the Department
of Community and Regional Affairs dated 3/5/99 and
Department of Public Safety dated 3/5/99.
HOUSE BILL NO. 141
An Act providing for preferential voting in state and
local elections.
Representative Bunde MOVED to adopt work draft #1-LS0669\S,
Kurtz, 4/19/99, as the version before the Committee. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted.
KELLY SULLIVAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT, stated that
Alaska has a history of electing minority candidates who
collected a plurality of vote's cast, but not a majority.
The most important principle of a democratic form of
government is that the majority rules. HB 141 would
eliminate the possibility of having a minority candidate win
an election.
Ms. Sullivan pointed out that HB 141 would allow a voter to
prioritize their preferences by ranking each candidate. If
no candidate received 50% of the votes cast, then the
candidate with the least votes would be eliminated and the
votes re-tabulated. Using a ranking system in state and
local elections would insure that the winning candidate
received at least 50% of the votes cast.
Ms. Sullivan noted that the bill goes into length explaining
the procedures necessary to manage a preferential style of
voting. It is the bill's intent that the proposed style
would be more fair and a more democratic process than the
current system. She urged that the bill be moved from
Committee.
Ms. Sullivan requested the opportunity to show a video on
"Instant Run Off Voting" (IRV) which addresses the current
systems problems. The video outlined ways in which the IRV
system would provide a sensible and fair alternative to the
old method.
In response to Representative Bunde, Ms. Sullivan explained
that the bill would guarantee that every vote counts.
Voters would continue to have the power to vote for only one
candidate or up to five. She reiterated that the idea is
that every vote counts.
Representative Grussendorf interjected that the proposed
system would provide an opportunity for all voters in
support of a third party a chance to vote twice.
Representative J. Davies requested clarification of the
"write in candidates". Ms. Kelly commented that Co-Chair
Therriault would address that question in a proposed
amendment. [Copy on File]. She continued, the bill would
allow voters to rank the write in candidate.
Representative Austerman asked how an incorrect ballot would
be determined. Ms. Kelly explained that portion of the
ballot which was filled in correctly would be a counted
vote, however, the vote filled out incorrectly would not be
counted. Co-Chair Therriault recommended that a
representative from the Division of Elections answer that
question.
STEVE HILL, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), WEST COAST
DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR VOTING DEMOCRACY, SAN FRANCISCO, stated
that he would address the process and how other states are
dealing with the concern. He noted that Center for Voting
Democracy (CVD) has been active on both local and state
levels in researching the questions regarding voting. He
added that CVD has been in contact with Australia and
Ireland where these practices have been implemented.
He continued, the good news in terms of implementing the
software is that Alaska is already using the required Active
Vote sheet, however, the current software is different from
that needed. Implementing that change would cost $200
thousand dollars. Mr. Hill suggested that an alternative
method could be used which would not require software to be
changed. Such a method would involve hand counting the
ballot choices on election night.
Mr. Hill added that with the proposed system of transferring
a vote on the ballot, there would be no advantages to bullet
voting. The vote is not transferred until the first
candidate has lost.
(Tape Change HFC 99 - 88, Side 2).
Mr. Hill explained on how the two round run off works. All
voted candidates continue to be in the ranks. He noted that
in Ireland and Australia, they do not have write-in votes.
That is a new idea coming out of Cambridge. In Alaska, one
write-in would be allowed. Mr. Hill commented how highly
sensitized the machinery is that counts ballots. In some
situations, the ballot that is improperly marked could be
"spit" out of the tallying machine.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned if Massachusetts was the only
State nationally using the proposed system. Mr. Hill
replied that Massachusetts is as does the City of New York
for community school board elections.
Representative Grussendorf pointed out that the video
mentioned that there would be no primary elections. He
asked if it was the intent that an IRV would be used in the
primary election. He noted that Ireland and Australia are
unitary in nature and do not have the separation of powers.
Representative Grussendorf cautioned that the proposed
system will create complications and questioned why Alaska
would elect to implement such a system.
Mr. Hill replied that it is possible with the transferable
ballot system to do away with primaries. He agreed that
would be sometimes advantageous and sometimes not. He noted
that nothing would change with the separation of powers in
the proposal before the Committee. The bill would provide a
means in which the majority of the electorate provide the
winner.
Representative J. Davies questioned if the legislation would
require a closed primary. Mr. Hill replied that the way in
which the bill is currently written would require a closed
primary. Representative J. Davies interjected that Alaska
currently has an open primary that the population favors.
Representative Grussendorf questioned if the intent was to
include primaries. Co-Chair Therriault replied that the
proposed legislation does not do away with primaries.
Representative Grussendorf argued that the bill specifies
that it would "reduce" the necessity for primaries.
Representative Foster voiced confusion with the legislation.
He asked what the effect of negative voting would have in an
election. Mr. Hill provided an example of a past
presidential election. Some people vote for the greater or
lesser of two evils one being the second choice. The
proposed system would free voters up to vote for who they
really want. Co-Chair Therriault summarized that if there
were three people running for three spots, a sway could
occur by casting one vote.
Representative J. Davies spoke to the cost of buying new
software and asked if Mr. Hill's group would be willing to
help the State defray some of the costs associated with that
charge. Mr. Hill replied that CVD is a non-profit
educational organization, however, noted that other states
are contemplating the system and might be willing to
negotiate a cost share development.
Representative J. Davies asked why the video called the
present system "unfair". Mr. Hill proposed that the value
exists in that the majority rules in an IRV election.
"Fairness" could be a mark of a voting system not giving
voters what they ask for. Voting systems all have certain
values attached to them, and the value of preferential
voting is that the majority rules.
Representative Grussendorf asked if New Mexico had accepted
the new form of election. Mr. Hill replied that the bill
passed in the New Mexico Senate and then died in the House.
Representative Grussendorf reiterated the facts regarding
the cost of the software and who could purchase the rights
to use it from the State of Alaska. Mr. Hill reiterated
that there are other states that are seriously looking at
the possibility of using this system.
Representative J. Davies questioned if Mr. Hill would
portray Alaska as currently "looking into using the system"
if it was rejected here. Mr. Hill spoke to the cost,
pointing out that to amortize the $200 thousand dollar cost
over 10 years would be $20 thousand dollars per year.
GAIL FENUMIAI, ELECTION PROGRAM SPECIALIST, OFFICE OF THE
LT. GOVERNOR, voiced concern with HB 141 and the Division's
ability to work the proposed version.
Ms. Fenumiai expounded on statements made by Mr. Hill. She
stated that the global designed software would make Alaska
the only state using it. At this time, there is no one else
to help off set that cost. Additionally, New York recently
dropped using the system for their school board elections
because it took too long to tally the votes.
Ms. Fenumiai noted that the Division of Elections
anticipates problems for the election board trainers and
workers. Presently, the Division has a difficult time
recruiting workers. The workers they do have spend many
hours at polling locations to count the ballots. The
legislation will require extra election board workers. If
handout count teams are required to spend more time in the
district locations than they already are, it will be more
difficult recruiting.
An additional concern is the amount of time it would take to
provide results. In Alaska, absentee ballots can be
received up to fifteen days after Election Day. The actual
transferring of votes could take as long as the 15th day,
the date when the State Review Board begins their process.
Such action could cause an additional delay of validating
the certified winner.
Ms. Fenumiai continued, write in votes would continue to
create a host of problems. In order to determine who the
lowest first choice vote would be, the Division would be
required to individually count the write in votes. She
stressed the amount of time and cost that would mandate.
Additionally, the mis-marked ballots create concern; how
would they be dealt with. Language must clarify that in the
bill, without which, would make the legislation open to
legal challenge.
Mr. Fenumiai believed that the proposed legislation would
create confusion for the voters. The process will take a lot
longer placing the certification of an election around
December 12th, which is in conflict with the State
Constitution, Article 3, Section 4:
"The Governor shall be sworn in the first
Monday in December, following the election".
The time would make that one week later. The Division's
concern regarding the length of time it will take to
transfer votes, the redistribution of ballots, and the State
Review Board's needs.
Representative Bunde questioned the fiscal note accompanying
the legislation. Ms. Fenumiai explained that the fiscal
note would add an additional 160 acti-vote precinct
tabulators in precincts throughout the State, accounting for
over $1 million dollars. She expected that there would be
additional costs on either end of the process. If votes were
hand counted in the precincts and the first choice vote only
marked, the remaining choices would be moved to a central
location such as Juneau. She emphasized the amount of time
and money that would require. To achieve the quickest and
most accurate results would be to place tabulators in all
452 precincts throughout the State. Ms. Fenumiai concluded,
it is not known if our current system can be modified to
count the other choices. She acknowledged that the vendor
has instructed the Division that program modifications can
be made to accommodate this type of voting system, however,
the details have not been worked out.
Representative J. Davies pointed out that hand counting
could be a cheaper way to go in the first year, however that
expense would be a reoccurring cost for every election. He
reiterated his concern with losing the primary election
ballot and the cross voting which would occur within
political parties.
Representative Bunde asked if it was necessary to have a
closed primary for this system to work. Ms. Femumiai
defrayed that question to the sponsor. She asked what would
happen in a two-candidate race where neither candidate
received 50% of the vote.
CHRIS COOK, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), CHAIR, ALASKA
DEMOCRATIC PARTY, BETHEL, requested the Committee to ponder
several points which the bill would implement. It would
change the voting rights of the populace which he believed
should not be considered without public debate and
consensus. The vast majority of Alaskans agree with the
current system.
(Tape Change HFC 99 - 89, Side 1).
Mr. Cook reiterated that the proposed voting system is
untried and unproven. It would be expensive to implement as
the software does not exist at this time. He recommended
that a mock system should initially be set up. The
difficulty with the proposed system would be magnified 100%
once it reaches the general public. He believed that it
will confuse voters and delay voting results. The proposed
system would be particularly difficult for two types of
voters:
* Those that do not have English as their 1st
language; and
* Those that come from the other 49 states where
this system is not used. He argued that
complications in the preferential voting system
would discourage more voters from turning out.
Mr. Cook continued, the chemistry of the entire election
system would change with run off elections. The majority
vote requirement is not part of the present constitution and
implementation would require a constitutional change.
The concept that to have a majority vote is needed to win an
office conflicts with Alaska's having multiple candidates
for a party. Mr. Cook summarized, the proposed system could
lead to legal challenges from the Voting Rights Act as it
could deny certain groups access to the right of
participation. He emphasized that the current system serves
the State well and why fix something that is not broken.
Co-Chair Therriault disagreed that the proposed legislation
would "tinker" with a person's right to vote.
Representative Bunde believed that the bill would encourage
multiple party's participation.
KATHLEEN STRASBAUGH, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT
OF LAW, stated that there are legal issues regarding the
legislation. She advised that in order for the State to
apply the proposed legislation to the gubernatorial race,
there would need to be a constitutional amendment added.
She pointed out that a stipulation had deliberately added to
the Alaska State Constitution addressing votes received.
That language was incorporated understanding that there
would be no run off. She noted that there would be a
dispute if that were required and pointed out that HJR 31
had been proposed to address that issue.
Ms. Strasbaugh agreed that the concerns of the Division of
Elections were well founded. Practical problems can lead to
litigation based on general election laws. In Alaska, the
right to a write-in vote is not a constitutional
determination. It has not been addressed, however, some
states do view write-in voting as an effective way. Court
cases tend to arise when there is difficulty in determining
the voter's intent.
Ms. Strasbaugh spoke to primary election concerns. People
in Alaska are accustomed to being able to vote for whomever
they like in the primary election. She guaranteed that
logic would not enter into it. She foresaw voters arguing
with the poll workers which could become a serious issue.
There are other elements of "surprise" in the proposed
system which will lead to litigation. It is important that
the poll workers are not required to discuss the voting
procedures and strategy. Voting will become a strategic
choice.
Ms. Strasbaugh distributed a handout - Scenario #2. [Copy
on File]. She explained that the handout illustrates
possible voting scenarios, stressing how complex the voters
thinking will need to become in order to fill out the
ballot. These factors are important considerations with
passage of this legislation.
Ms. Strasbaugh contended that there is a lack of press
addressing this concept. Nationally, certain
municipalities have had some experience with per
proportionate voting. Another alternative is the cumulative
voting method which was used and abandoned after 110 years
by the Illinois Legislature. She explained that the purpose
of that system was established during the Civil War, when
there were very polarized voting relationships, it was
essential to guarantee that each party had an adequate vote.
There is something in every new system that "worries" people
that their vote is not receiving proper treatment. Some
voters feel that minority parties will have too much power
if these types of systems are put into place.
Ms. Strasbaugh acknowledged that there are other voters
interested in alternative voting procedures. These are the
academic commentators and the participants in voting rights
litigation. The Courts are looking closely at redistricting
which creates an additional voting concern. An alternate
system that has been discussed is the multi-member
districts.
Ms. Strasbaugh concluded, Italy is currently trying to get
rid of the voting preference scheme. Shri Lanka is another
place that employs this type of voting that is looking at
other considerations. The United Kingdom has spent the last
year studying if they should change their current system to
a procedure used in the U.S. or to incorporate preference
voting. The voters in that country will make the decision.
CRAIG BLACK, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
walked Committee members through a potential scenario which
could result from passage of the proposed legislation.
Mr. Black distributed a handout called "Surprising Results
from HB 141". [Copy on File]. He addressed examples of a
general election, illustrating how HB 141 would not keep
candidates who are "out of step" with the public, from being
elected into office.
JOHN LINDBACK, CHIEF OF STAFF, OFFICE OF THE LT. GOVERNOR,
stated that there are significant issues which need to be
addressed with the proposed legislation. He noted that the
Lt. Governor has serious concerns about the bill and is
opposed to the legislation on legislative grounds relating
to:
* Fairness;
* Legal Problems;
* The speed which this policy issue appears to be
moving through the Legislature;
* Budget priorities; and
* Expectation that Alaska would be serving as the
"lab rat" for the rest of the Nation.
Mr. Lindback pointed out that most Alaskans feel "just fine"
about the outcome of local elections since inception at
statehood. He stated that the proposed voting system does
not provide the mandate that voters want. The proposed
system would produce a candidate that received less than 50%
of the first vote round and then was pushed over the top by
a second pool of voters. He emphasized that is not a
majority mandate and would provide for someone who is not a
majority candidate. That would be a false mandate and is
misleading to suggest that would be a true mandate.
Mr. Lindback stated that the proposed system would be
inherently unfair to mainstream voters, by providing third
party voters two votes while the mainstream voters receive
one vote. People like the idea of ranking candidate so that
they can say on the ballot who they do "not" like. However,
when you explain to the voter how the redistribution works,
the voter begins to become concerned, because they discover
that the second choice will factor into the equation of who
wins the race. The way the bill is structured, the third
party voters have their votes redistributed which means that
the third party voter receives two votes and the mainstream
voter receives one vote. People do not like that. It does
not sound fair to them. He emphasized that this bill
deserves and requires major consideration by the public.
Mr. Lindback advised that Mr. Hill did acknowledge that the
proposed legislation recommends a closed primary. He noted
that Lt. Governor Ulmer clarified that there is a section of
the bill which is closed primary and foresees litigation
through its implementation. The legislation will restrict
people from roaming the ballot.
Co-Chair Therriault suggested that there is a difference
between "roaming the ballot" and being restricted by not
having a chance to pick between the parties. Mr. Lindback
understood that distinction.
Mr. Lindback reiterated that no other state is implementing
this procedure. Alaska will be the "lab rat" for the rest
of the Nation. He pointed out that this bill was introduced
twice in Vermont, going no where, as no one understands why
we need to fix something that is not broken.
Mr. Lindback indicated that John Anderson, an unsuccessful
third party candidate, started the group Mr. Hill works for.
He elaborated that this bill has appeal to third parties.
Mr. Lindback had asked Center for Voting Democracy (CVD)
why they had not spent the $200 thousand dollars for the
software so that they could provide it freely to individual
states. The response was they were too small to undertake
that cost. The Office of the Lt. Governor expressed that is
not fair, suggesting that Alaska should incur the expense
for the rest of the Nation. If we are considering being the
lab rats for the rest of the states, it is important that
State voters are consulted.
(Tape Change HFC 99 - 89, Side 2).
Mr. Lindback spoke to funding the proposed legislation. He
stated that there are greater concerns which this year's
limited budget should address. Mr. Lindback urged Committee
members to slow the process down. He referenced a handout
provided in member's files from the League of Women Voters,
requesting that the process slow down. [Copy on File].
Additionally, he pointed out that the legislation could
require two constitutional amendments.
Representative J. Davies observed that only in two of the
last ten gubernatorial elections was a clear majority
reached. He added that an argument regarding the fairness
of any election will always exist. He was convinced that
the proposed legislation would not get the State closer to a
fair solution.
Co-Chair Therriault commented that the fiscal note appears
to be high. He requested further information regarding the
note.
HB 141 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:15 P.M.
H.F.C. 13 4/20/99 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|