Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/01/1999 08:15 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 1, 1999
8:15 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Scott Ogan
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Harold Smalley
Representative Jim Whitaker
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HB 141
"An "ACCU-Vote" providing for preferential voting in state and
local elections."
- MOVED CSSSHB 141 (STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 141
SHORT TITLE: PREFERENTIAL VOTING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) KOTT, Porter, Cowdery, Green
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/17/99 492 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/17/99 492 (H) STA, FINANCE
3/24/99 554 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
3/24/99 554 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/24/99 554 (H) STA, FINANCE
3/30/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
3/30/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/01/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
JOHN FIELDS, Vice-Chair
Alaskan Independence Party
2050 Resolution Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
Telephone: (907) [not provided]
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 141
KELLY SULLIVAN, Secretary
to Representative Pete Kott
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3777
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 141 on behalf of Representative
Kott, sponsor of HB 141.
KATHLEEN STRASBAUGH
Assistant Attorney General
Governmental Affairs Section
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 141.
GAIL FENUMIAI, Election Program Specialist
Division of Elections
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
P.O. Box 110017
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-4611
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 141.
CHIP WAGONER, Republican National Committeeman
Chair, Legislative Committee
Republican National Committee
3294 Pioneer Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-1867
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 141.
ERIC SKIDMORE
P.O. Box 56
Chugiak Alaska 99567
Telephone: (907) 688-9096
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 141 because it
gives third parties a more ligitmate chance
to get started.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-20, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:15 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives James, Coghill, Ogan, Hudson and
Kerttula. Representatives Whitaker and Smalley were excused.
HB 141 PREFERENTIAL VOTING
CHAIR JAMES announced HB 141, "An "ACCU-Vote" providing for
preferential voting in state and local elections," is before the
committee.
Number 014
CHAIR JAMES read JOHN FIELDS, Vice-Chair, Alaska Independence
Party, Fairbanks, testimony into the record.
I would like to speak in support of HB 141. It appears to be
one way of saving everyone money by eliminating primaries and
runoff elections. Preferential voting would also, I think,
have voters back to the polls by allowing them to have the
option of voting their conscience rather than having the
illusion of voting the lesser of two evils.
Let's face it the two party system is, if not dead at least
dieing. Alternative parties are proliferating we need a
balloting system that offers today's reality not yesterdays
pipe dreams.
CHAIR JAMES noted that a new CS had been drafted. [Version L was
before the committee on Tuesday].
Number 056
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON moved to adopt CSSSHB 141, version LS0069\M,
4/1/99, as the working document before the committee.
Number 075
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN objected because he has not had the chance to
review it.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON pointed out that the new CS would have to be
adopted before it can be discussed.
CHAIR JAMES reiterated the motion is to adopt CSSSHB 141, version
LS0069\M, as the working document before the committee and asked if
there were any objections. There being none, it was so ordered.
Number 123
KELLY SULLIVAN, Secretary, Representative Kott's office, came
forward. She said version M addresses some of the concerns that
were raised by the Division of Elections. Ms. Sullivan said the
language in the last committee substitute [version L] could have
been interpreted as a closed primary which would have been
unconstitutional. Therefore, the language was amended by adding
the word "blanket" primary.
MS. SULLIVAN pointed out that there also were questions regarding
the ballot layout and dealing with special advanced [overseas]
ballots mailed to voters who are out of the country. Version M now
gives more discretion to the director and the Division of Elections
on how they want the ballots printed and counted. She said, "So we
don't have folks counting in the precincts there until 5:00 in the
morning because it is going to take more time."
MS. SULLIVAN noted that Section 3 permits the director of the
Division of Elections to adopt regulations necessary to expedite
the manner in which ballot counts are accomplished.
MS. SULLIVAN stated that another concern was about write-in
candidates and how they would be ranked if he or she received one,
two or three votes. She said Section 4 prescribes a manner in
which candidates (who receive the least first-choice votes),
specifically candidates who are write-ins (who receive less than 25
votes) are eliminated, and then the second-choice votes are
distributed.
Number 199
CHAIR JAMES mentioned Kathryn Kurtz (drafter of HB 141) is present.
KATHLEEN STRASBAUGH, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental
Affairs Section (one of the attorneys who works with the Division
of Elections), Department of Law, came before the committee. She
expressed her concern about the speed at which this radical
departure from our usual procedures is proceeding.
MS. STRASBAUGH indicated that she really would have liked to
explore election contests in Ireland and Australia to see if this
process has generated more or less litigation about counting
ballots. Do people double-rank candidates and blackout too many
squares. She emphasized that these are the types of issues that
are looked at when systems are being switched. She said the
division wants some precedents, or a place with a long experience,
to tell them how this is going to work in practice.
MS. STRASBAUGH mentioned she overheard a conversation about the
elimination of the district board - a removal from a local office.
She said maybe it's a good thing, maybe it's bad, but it's
something that needs to be discussed.
Number 245
MS. STRASBAUGH emphasized that HJR 31 [Proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the State of Alaska requiring that the Governor
be elected by a majority vote if a preferential voting system is
provided by law] may require a constitutional amendment, which
creates is a potential flaw in this legislation [HB 141].
MS. STRASBAUGH said she believes Sections 25 and 26 was the effort
to deal with the open primary, however, it wasn't successful.
The director shall include instructions on blanket primary
election ballots directing the voter to mark candidates for an
office within a single political party in order of preference
and to mark as many choices as the voter wishes within a
single political party, but not to assign a particular ranking
to more than one candidate or to rank candidates from more
than one party.
MS. STRASBAUGH said people will want to debate this on all sides of
the spectrum. She reiterated that, in her opinion, that effort was
not successful - that new section changes the character of the
primary.
CHAIR JAMES pointed out that HB 141 is trying to make sure that the
voters are able to vote across the board and to be sure that two
candidates, from the same party, don't win in the primary.
Number 277
MS. STRASBAUGH said, "Because I don't think this does it, I was
thinking (indisc.) it might limit somebody to - within a party and
it has the effect of not letting them do what they have always done
in the past; that's the way I read it."
CHAIR JAMES remarked that this doesn't necessarily do that. She
said they currently can't take more than one party person in a
primary and we don't want them to do that again. And, if that
doesn't work, let's work on that language.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Ms. Strasbaugh repeat her testimony.
MS. STRASBAUGH said she had referred to Sections 25 and 26, page 9,
version M, and understood that there was an effort to solve that
problem. However, Section 26 might be read to limit people to
voting within one party. If that is the intent, it might need to
be mentioned in the title, furthermore, the language would have to
be changed.
Number 315
MS. STRASBAUGH said her final point has to do with a basic review
of bills - does this [HB 141] accomplish the objective? She was
under the impression that some people, who are enthusiastic about
it, think it's going to assure majority support for the winning
candidate.
MS. STRASBAUGH stated that, "In Scenario 1 [Provided in the
packet], I'm not trying to tie this to anything that's going on in
Alaska, I'm just assuming - perhaps the presence of some relatively
strong third parties. So, if you have to go to round three, have
the result of a third party, who's many people's third choice, is
winning. This is something that can happen, it doesn't mean that
it will."
CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Strasbaugh to repeat, "many people's third
choice."
Number 346
MS. STRASBAUGH replied yes, the third choice can win. She
explained that she had read on a Web site that the Irish Prime
Minister, Mary Robinson, had floated to the top from a third
position which may certainly give hope to alternative and third
party candidates. This may be an objective of HB 141, and it may
be the source of support. She said she is not criticizing the
objective, but that is one possible result of using the
preferential voting system.
CHAIR JAMES pointed out that a survey was conducted by her office
regarding the 1996 election. She said she asked her constituents
if "none of the above" was one of the choices would they have
voted, and they responded yes. Chair James said we must have a
system that the majority supports, and people should fell like
their vote will count. They can have a second choice and know that
if it isn't a majority in the beginning that their second vote will
count. She emphasized that she didn't want to see the two-party
system die.
MS. STRASBAUGH said people are going to have different views of
what this does for them. She expressed concern, based on what she
has heard, that if her third choice gets elected, whether that
person really has majority support. She indicated that the example
that was presented in the video assumed that we had a powerful
majority that has broken into factions, however, they were able to
gather together to win because they really were in the majority.
Ms. Strasbaugh stated that she wanted to show that there were a
number of other scenarios.
Number 439
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referred to the third-choice winning. He asked
if that occurred in Ireland.
MS. STRASBAUGH replied yes, she read that on a Webb site.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he wanted more discussion regarding the
third-choice winning to see how that might work.
CHAIR JAMES mentioned that she has been a member of organizations
which conducted their elections in this manner. She indicated that
if Alaska didn't have a primary, there is the possibility of a
second or third choice being grouped with another party with this
system. However, she doesn't believe that there are enough other
parties that would cause this to happen.
MS. STRASBAUGH stated that she is under the impression that that
actually did happen in Ireland, that the Prime Minister was elected
that way.
CHAIR JAMES said that indicates that no one was popular in the
first place because they had to go to a third vote.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stressed that he is concerned with the
comment by the attorney that this may be unconstitutional as it
relates to the governor.
Number 495
CHAIR JAMES noted a constitutional amendment is in the Judiciary
Committee just for that reason. House Joint Resolution 31 states:
The candidate receiving the greatest number of votes shall be
governor except if a preferential voting system is provided by
law the candidate receiving the majority votes will.
CHAIR JAMES explained that it just accepts preferential voting, if
the legislature would so choose.
MS. STRASBAUGH noted the constitution presently requires the
greatest number of votes only.
CHAIR JAMES agreed with Ms. Strasbaugh. She said it's narrow; if
one candidate received 30 percent of the votes and another
candidate received 30 percent he or she would also win.
MS. STRASBAUGH referred to Representative Ogan's question regarding
what would happen if a person only chose one candidate. She said,
"In scenario 2, I found that I could lose even if I was in a
majority party. If there is a strong third or fourth party, and it
dropped out, then I could lose my franchise. That's the way I feel
about it, that's not what's really happening. I had my chance to
vote several times and I chose not too. But the one potential
result (again assuming the parties are well within striking
distance of each other) is that you still end up without a majority
because a lot of people said, 'By golly, I can only vote for my
candidate, I can't vote for any other.' And I frankly would
certainly feel that way in a lot of elections, especially local
ones."
CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Strasbaugh if she didn't have a second
choice.
Number 533
MS. STRASBAUGH responded that she often has a second choice but
doesn't always, especially in a smaller jurisdiction. She noted
that this concerns her a lot because, if the body politically
chooses this system, they'll know what they're getting into but the
average voter may not know that. She emphasized that the Division
of Elections can't direct people on how to use these choices
[first, second, and third]. She said, "I think that if people
decide they only have one choice, or even (indisc.) have two in a
situation where you're going down to your third choice you could
end up without a majority."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said there's a principle when you have multiple
choices on a ballot - called a short ballot. And, if half of the
people vote multiple choices, and the other half vote for one
candidate, it would be interesting to see if that would be a short
ballot and would heavily favor the person that receives only one
vote with no alternative. Someone, who might be a longshot, could
say, "You want to elect me, just make sure you vote for me and only
me." He said it might not be as blatant as that, but it could
design a strategy to encourage people to do that which would give
them an unfair advantage.
CHAIR JAMES explained that a short ballot counts only when you are
expecting to have multiple decisions. In other words, you're
electing three out of five.
MS. STRASBAUGH said she tends to believe that that works for at-
large, where there's more than one candidate. However, she doesn't
know if it would work in a preference if you had an at-large
situation. She said she was surprised to see that she might drop
out all together and not be counted and that wasn't what she had
expected.
Number 589
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted that was one of her concerns because
the first CS [version L] actually states that you're going to drop
out if you don't have other choices. She said that is not the way
we were brought up to vote. And, it's intuitive to us that we have
more power if we just vote once.
MS. STRASBAUGH emphasized that people need to be able to debate
what their vote means. She said she would like to read the CS to
discover what the counting, and other difficulties are in the
language. She noted that there are legal problems associated with
the practical difficulties which Ms. Fenumiai had described. She
said, "And, when you start having access problems, you're talking
about the Justice Department and there won't be any precedents for
them to look at either."
CHAIR JAMES said this is a huge change and change doesn't come
easy. She mentioned that she has been watching the destruction of
the two-party system over the years.
CHAIR JAMES indicated HB 141 will move quickly through the
legislature. However she suspects it will not become law. She
said she personally would like it to pass because a lot of people,
who currently don't vote, will come to the table on this one.
Number 663
GAIL FENUMIAI, Election Program Specialist, Division of Elections,
Office of the Lieutenant Governor, stated that she is not going to
address the new CS because the division has not had an opportunity
to review it section by section. She stated for the record that
the division would like to have HB 141 held.
MS. FENUMIAI emphasized that there will be fiscal impacts. And,
due to the sponsor substitute on Tuesday, and a CS again today, the
division has not had an opportunity to put dollar amounts together.
CHAIR JAMES said she understands that the division couldn't
possibly prepare a fiscal note at this time and agreed that HB 141
will have a huge fiscal impact.
MS. FENUMIAI said she would provide the committee with Cambridge's
sample ballots.
CHAIR JAMES asked if Cambridge used the ACCU-Vote system but with
a different platform.
MS. FENUMIAI replied yes, Cambridge uses different software.
Number 692
CHIP WAGONER, Republican National Committeeman, Chair, Legislative
Committee, Republican National Committee came before the committee.
He explained that voters, in a closed primary, must be a member of
the political party in order to vote for a member of that political
party. In an open primary, a voter must be either a nonpartisan or
a member of the political party in order to vote in that political
party. He said he believes Alaska is one of three states that
have a blanket primary (California and Washington are the others)
where anyone can vote for a party-person and can mix and match.
MR. WAGONER stressed that there is no change in this bill. What HB
141 does, is it gives the voter additional rights of expressing
their preferences in the primary system. For instance, once they
decide who they want for governor, they could rank all the
Democrats for governor. If they decide to vote for a Republican
for the State House of Representatives, they can rank all of the
Republicans. But to allow them to rank everyone in all of the
offices, for all of the parties, would essentially give them the
right to vote not once, but for how many more times there are
parties. He said, "One person, one vote is something we all
believe in."
Number 725
MR. WAGONER referred to Ireland's 1990 presidential election.
Brian Lenihan received 44 percent of the votes as the first-choice
vote, Mary Robinson (who was elected) received 38 percent, and
Austin Currie received 17 percent. Austin Currie, who come in
third was eliminated and his votes were transferred. Fourteen
percent of those votes went to Mary Robinson and 3 percent went to
Brian Lenihan. So Mary Robinson ended up winning by 53 percent.
Mr. Wagoner said, "The beauty of this, in terms of ensuring that
the most representative candidate wins, is that the only people
ever eliminated in this process are those that come in last. The
person that comes in third, as the assistant attorney general
stated, on the first-go-around is actually the most representative
candidate when you take into account all the voters." He indicated
that often a person's second choice is more liked than people that
may be on the extreme.
MR. WAGONER referred to the comment that voters will not understand
this system. He urged the committee members to read the Vermont
Commission Report because junior high school students and high
school students used this system and 91 percent of those students
said they did not have any difficulty in understanding it.
MR. WAGONER referred to the constitutional issue on electing a
governor. He pointed out that there are two provisions in the
constitution which applies, the first one mentioned by the
assistant attorney general is Article 3, Section 3, basically says
most votes wins, however, Article 5, Section 3, states that the
legislature shall determine the method of voting. He asked, "Which
one of those sections prevails? We could just avoid the litigation
by making the change that takes care of all of the constitutional
issues."
Number 774
MS. FENUMIAI mentioned that Vermont did have a commission that
strongly recommended going to preferential voting. She noted
legislation was introduced but failed to move out of the first
committee during Vermont's last two legislative sessions. She also
mentioned similar legislation passed the Senate in New Mexico but
failed in the House.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Ms. Fenumiai if Vermont required a
constitutional amendment.
MS. FENUMIAI replied that she is not sure, but New Mexico did
require a constitutional amendment and that failed.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON indicated that if we could find that out,
that might help the committee understand it better.
CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Fenumiai what the percentage of voters are
not of a political party persuasion.
Number 792
MS. FENUMIAI pointed out that the undeclared are 33.77 percent, and
the nonpartisans are 18.13 percent, combined it is 51 percent. She
said, on a side note, John Lindback, Chief of Staff, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor has a copy of the Vermont legislation and that
will be provided to the committee. She also noted the legislature
in Vermont didn't feel that the current system was broken so they
didn't feel the need to fix it.
CHAIR JAMES said we don't know what the political will is and the
two-party system is broken in the state. She said she would be
interested in knowing what those numbers are in other states.
Furthermore, being independent is indicative of Alaska. Chair
James said she wouldn't feel bad if Alaska was the first state to
accept the preferential voting system.
MS. FENUMIAI pointed out that it also appears back through 1992
that nonpartisan and undeclared affiliated voters have been more
than 50 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN remarked Alaskans are allowed to vote by fax,
is that correct.
MS. FENUMIAI replied that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if that was done by regulation or by
statute.
MS. FENUMIAI replied by statute.
Number 825
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he has two concerns. One is how would
that be incorporated, and whether or not it has been addressed in
HB 141. He said it also appears to be a violation of the
constitution because Article 5, Section 3 says, "Secrecy of voting
shall be preserved."
MS. FENUMIAI explained that prior legislation specifically states
that the voter waived their entire right to a secret ballot by
choosing to vote by fax.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if a voter can waive a constitutional
right.
CHAIR JAMES indicated that she knew what Representative Ogan was
going to say because she shares the same feelings.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said, if you have a Democrat, a Republican
and a Green, you're not going to allow people to rank all three,
you're not going to let them vote across the board. Is that right?
MR. WAGONER replied, "You don't now under the blanket primary."
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she wants to understand what this one
[HB 141] does. She stated that this won't happen, under the intent
of this legislation.
MR. WAGONER replied, "You're correct, it works the exact same way
it works now for blanket primaries. The only difference is the
voter has the additional option of ranking. Once they've picked
the office, and the candidate they like in that office, they get to
rank all the candidates for that party in that office."
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA further stated, okay, so number two, where
you've got a Democrat, and a Republican and a Green, this also
can't happen. You can't have one first choice going to a Democrat,
and then crossing over for a second for a Republican, third for a
Republican, or wherever. That can't happen either?
MR. WAGONER replied, "That is for the same office."
Number 857
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA clarified that we are just talking about
one office. She said she believes a lot of people were confused
because the committee heard a lot of smaller parties testified,
"Great idea, this will bring it down, let us people have second
choices." She emphasized that can't happen if it's the same office
- this won't happen.
MR. WAGONER replied, no, all recognized parties are entitled by law
to get on the general election ballot. That all other parties are
not recognized to automatically be on the general election ballot
unless they have a petition of so many names.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA clarified that then this could happen in
the general election.
TAPE 99-20, SIDE B
Number 001
MR. WAGONER pointed out that all of the voters will be able to rank
all parties in the general election.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said, in the general this could happen.
MR. WAGONER replied yes, because they're all running for the same
office. However, in the primary election the Republican is running
for the Republican nomination, the Democrat is running for the
Democrats' nomination, and so on. A primary is a series of five
elections, one for each one of the parties. And the voters, no
matter how they're registered, will be able to vote in whichever
one of those primaries they want to vote in. He said, "But under
current law we don't allow them to vote in all five, and under the
new law - we didn't change that."
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA reiterated that the voters could choose
within the party during the primary. She said she just wanted to
be sure she understood that.
Number 035
MS. FENUMIAI drew the member's attention to information that was
found on the Internet regarding preferential voting. She read the
following:
Under the Irish alternative vote system (AV) a lower placed
candidate who picks up a lots of preference votes can still
overtake higher-placed candidates and ultimately win the seat.
The most recent example of a president winning through the
transfer of preferences in this manner was the 1990 election
of Mary Robinson to the Irish president.
CHAIR JAMES commented that she doesn't know that that's bad,
because in your second choice you're saying, "Okay, if I can't have
that one I'll have this one." She said some people don't think
their vote is going to count, so they don't vote.
Number 074
ERIC SKIDMORE testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He said
he is a resident of Chugiak and first heard about preferential
voting when Jim Sykes ran for governor in 1990. And, like a lot of
other people, he was confused by it at first but the more he looked
at it, the better it sounded because it does give the third parties
a more legitimate chance to get started.
MR. SKIDMORE further stated, "The mathematics of it may be
confusing, but then we're kind of mathematically challenged since
we've had these single-member districts and winner-take-all
situations, whereas, the rest of the world has had some sort of
multi-member districts or mixed-member party lists. And I have a
list here ... and it shows the turnout rates, and the European
countries that used a kind of preferential voting - and they're
much higher than even the European countries that don't use it such
as Great Britain and France. And the United States turnout is like
40 percent and lower in some of these districts."
MR. SKIDMORE said he thinks the third parties wouldn't split the
vote in the perverse way that they do it now; you would get more of
a majoritarian kind of outcome. For example, Senator Stevens asked
Jack Coghill not to run as a third party because he was going to
break into someone else's chance [of winning]. Mr. Skidmore said,
"I think that's kind of an unfortunate situation because, when I go
into Carrs [Quality Center] or Safeway [Stores, Incorporated], I
would be appalled if I only had a choice between turnips and
broccoli, which is what our current situation gives us. I would
rather have 50 choices on the ballot and be confused than to have
just two choices and not have anything like that."
Number 125
MR. SKIDMORE mentioned that there was some concern that the Bush
would have a hard time using the "computer situation." He said he
thinks, in most cases, the second place votes would probably be
decided in the urban areas where 90 percent of the computer-
generated ballots could be counted. So, it would be very unlikely
that you would actually have to go to a situation where it would go
down to the wire. He indicated that elections, which usually go
down to the wire, usually happen in the winner-take-all situation.
MR. SKIDMORE concluded that in the last election, in 1998, 41
percent of the state legislative districts were unopposed by a
major party candidate. He said that's probably the reason people
are not showing up in droves to vote - it's because they have no
choices.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked Chair James if she intends to move HB 141
today.
CHAIR JAMES replied that is her intention.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he believes there are still some things to
digest and that CS was sprung on the committee only this morning.
He said HB 141 is a good idea, and that he's not saying the
committee shouldn't move it. He mentioned the Division of
Elections has requested more time for consideration.
CHAIR JAMES reiterated her stand on the issue of preferential
voting. She read the following statement into the record because
there is absolutely no way that the Division of Elections can
provide a fiscal note:
Number 211
The Division of Elections understandably cannot provide a
fiscal note for the Committee Substitute for HB 141 until they
know what the bill will look like. Since we have been
requested to have this bill read across ASAP they cannot do
that in the time allowed.
After discussions with Tam Cook, Director of Legislative Legal
Services, and with the House Clerk's office, we are informed
it is allowed for our committee to do the following:
1. Since a fiscal note was requested in a timely manner but
the Administration cannot provide it in time for the bill
to be read across immediately, we can move HB 141 out of
committee without a fiscal note attached.
2. The Clerk can read the bill across with "Fiscal Note
Forth-coming."
3. Division of Elections will thus be given time to prepare
a fiscal note in accordance with whatever changes our
committee has made to the bill by the time we re-convene
after the Easter break. Gail [Fenumiai] says this should
give her time to have it ready by the time it gets to the
Finance Committee.
Number 242
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he would also like hold HB 141 because
he would like to have a chance to study it and provide some input.
He said "I feel awkward by trying to do it by making comments that
might have a hidden answer here." He indicated that he likes the
concept, but there are some questions that need to be answered.
Representative Coghill also noted that before the committee moves
a bill that doesn't have a fiscal note, he really would like to
have the concept solidified.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said State Affairs is a good committee and
it does good work. She noted that she would feel a lot more
comfortable if she was able to read the CS before the bill moved.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON pointed out one of his biggest concerns is
probably the applicableness to the constitution and the legal
ramifications of it. He said he believes HB 141 would be benefited
if it went through the Judiciary committee [not directly to the
Finance Committee].
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON referred to the estimated of millions of
dollars to implement a preferential voting system. He indicated
that, knowing what the budget situation is and the general feeling
that there will not be any increases, could be an impediment to its
final passage this year. He said he will support moving HB 141.
CHAIR JAMES agreed that HB 141 will have a huge fiscal note and
that it will be a problem if the legislature were to pass this
legislation this year. She suggested moving it out of committee so
the public would be able to look at it. Chair James said she will
put it to the vote.
Number 328
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN suggested holding HB 141 until Thursday so
people can digest it.
CHAIR JAMES noted that it would then have to be heard a week from
Thursday [after Ester break] and suspected that the committee will
be no further along than they are today.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN indicated that he would like to offer an
amendment.
CHAIR JAMES remarked that attorneys are available to assist in a
conceptual amendment.
CHAIR JAMES called an at-ease at 9:18 and called the meeting back
to order at 9:24 a.m.
Number 343
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON moved to report CSSSHB 141 (STA) out of
committee with individual recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN removed his objection because he believes his
concerns will be addressed by the sponsor. He also indicated that
there has been a lack of cooperation with the Administration.
Number 364
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA objected to the motion.
CHAIR JAMES suggested the Division of Elections list their
concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she believes the Administration has
done a good job with the time they've been given. Furthermore,
none of the members in the committee has had an opportunity to read
the new CS with the exception of the chair. She stated that, "This
is not a good process, it's passing the buck, this is what makes
people stay away from the polls." Representative Kerttula said she
strenuously objects to this happening because she believes the work
should be done in this committee.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he doesn't believe that there is much
public interest. He indicated that HB 141 will either rise or fall
on the significant cost of implementing this system. Ultimately it
will have to go before the people of Alaska for a vote.
Number 412
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that there are still some questions
worthy of examination. It's also true that the financial side of
this is going to be the major issue. He said he intends to meet
with his constituents this week and will talk about the concept and
will focus on HB 141. Representative Coghill stated that he won't
hold the bill up, but he will be following it.
CHAIR JAMES said, "I do believe, when we look at the demographics
of the voters in the state, we better find something that's
different from what we're doing. And we better find a way to make
the people's voice be heard."
Number 459
Upon a roll call vote, Representatives Hudson, Ogan, Coghill, and
James voted in favor of moving CSSSHB 141 and Representative
Kerttula voted against it. Therefore, CSSSHB 141 passed by a vote
of 4 to 1.
Number 461
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON moved to report the message on the fiscal
note out of committee with individual recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA objected.
Upon a roll call vote, Representatives Hudson, Ogan, Coghill, and
James voted in favor of moving the message with HB 141 and
Representative Kerttula voted against it. Therefore, the message
passed by a vote of 4 to 1.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 473
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:30 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|