Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
05/02/2017 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB200 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 200 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
May 2, 2017
3:09 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Vice Chair
Representative Chris Tuck
Representative Adam Wool
Representative Chris Birch
Representative Gary Knopp
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Andy Josephson (alternate)
Representative Chuck Kopp (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 200
"An Act establishing a top two nonpartisan open primary election
system for elective state executive and state and national
legislative offices; repealing the special runoff election for
the office of United States senator or United States
representative; changing appointment procedures relating to
precinct watchers and members of precinct election boards,
election district absentee and questioned ballot counting
boards, and the Alaska Public Offices Commission; requiring
certain written notices to appear in election pamphlets and
polling places; relating to declarations of candidacy and
letters of intent; and amending the definition of 'political
party.'"
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 200
SHORT TITLE: NONPARTISAN OPEN PRIMARY ELECTIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) LEDOUX
03/29/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/29/17 (H) JUD, STA
04/10/17 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/10/17 (H) Heard & Held
04/10/17 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/12/17 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/12/17 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/14/17 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/14/17 (H) Heard & Held
04/14/17 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/15/17 (H) JUD AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
04/15/17 (H) Moved CSHB 200(JUD) Out of Committee
04/15/17 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
04/19/17 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) NT 1DP 2DNP 2NR 1AM
04/19/17 (H) DP: LEDOUX
04/19/17 (H) DNP: EASTMAN, KOPP
04/19/17 (H) NR: KREISS-TOMKINS, CLAMAN
04/19/17 (H) AM: FANSLER
05/02/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
JASON OLSON, Director of National Outreach
Open Primaries
New York, New York
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 200.
ANDREW SINCLAIR, PhD, Clinical Assistant Professor
New York University Wagner Graduate School of Public Service
New York, New York
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information during the hearing on
HB 200.
COURTNEY ENRIGHT, Staff
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
200 on behalf of Representative LeDoux, prime sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:09:17 PM
CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:09 p.m.
Representatives LeDoux, Wool, Birch, Knopp, and Kreiss-Tomkins
were present at the call to order. Representative Tuck arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
HB 200-NONPARTISAN OPEN PRIMARY ELECTIONS
3:10:05 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the only order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 200, "An Act establishing a top two
nonpartisan open primary election system for elective state
executive and state and national legislative offices; repealing
the special runoff election for the office of United States
senator or United States representative; changing appointment
procedures relating to precinct watchers and members of precinct
election boards, election district absentee and questioned
ballot counting boards, and the Alaska Public Offices
Commission; requiring certain written notices to appear in
election pamphlets and polling places; relating to declarations
of candidacy and letters of intent; and amending the definition
of 'political party.'"
3:10:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX, prime sponsor of HB 200, explained the
that the "top two" nonpartisan primary system proposed under HB
200 would take the State of Alaska out of the business of
running primaries for private [political] parties. She
maintained that it would eliminate the role of primaries in
nominating candidates for parties and instead narrow the field
of candidates to the top two vote getters. She relayed that HB
200 was introduced because of consistent complaints from her
constituents regarding the semi-closed primary system in place
in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX maintained that Alaska benefitted from an
open primary system from 1946 to 2000. In 2000, the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled in California Democratic Party v. Jones that
private [political] parties could not be forced to open their
primaries to members of other parties. She asserted that the
top two primary is constitutional; according to a U.S. Supreme
Court Ruling in Washington State Grange v. Washington State
Republican Party [2008], this is not a primary that serves to
nominate candidates from either party but simply serves as a
winnowing process. She maintained that the proposed legislation
would bring "the will of the people" back to a more open primary
system.
3:13:22 PM
JASON OLSON, Director, National Outreach, Open Primaries,
paraphrased from his written testimony, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
I am testifying in favor of HB 200 and the efforts to
bring back an open primary to Alaska.
First let me thank Representative LeDoux for the
invitation to testify, and thank the committee members
for their time and attention to this important matter.
I am the Director of National Organizing for Open
Primaries, a nonprofit, nonpartisan national
organization with a singular mission, to ensure that
no American citizen be required to join a political
party in order to vote in a primary. Open Primaries is
working in red state, blue states, purple states and
we work with Republicans, Democrats, and independents
on this issue.
My background is that I founded a group of independent
voters in California that partnered with the coalition
led by Republican former Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger to bring a top two open primary to
California, as well as reform the redistricting
process. Since then I have worked on the issue of open
primaries in states around the country.
So why is restoring Alaska's open primary worth the
support of the Alaska State Legislature? In short, the
voters of Alaska, along with those in California and
Washington State, had their open primary stolen by a
terrible court decision in the year 2000. In that
case, the California Democratic Party sued the state
of California - which had copied Alaska's open primary
in 1996 - in order to close the primary elections.
In one of the worst supreme court decisions in a
generation, the court sided with the political
establishment of both parties against our citizens
basic freedom to vote for their elected
representatives. This, despite the fact that primary
elections are in fact are [sic] taxpayer funded, run
by government employees, and conducted on public owned
voting machines.
Alaska, California, and Washington state - all which
had the same open primary system - were forced to
return to a semi-closed primary that voters in each
state had previously rejected. This put all of these
states in a very difficult position. Voters in those
other states fought back and passed new open primaries
through ballot initiative. For this, they looked to
Nebraska, which has used the top two open primary
since 1934.
Under a top two open primary voters are free to vote
for who they want. Legislators are free to do what
they think is right for their constituents, rather
than have to toe the party line. And most of them
absolutely love it.
The impact in California has been tremendous. The
legislature's approval rating is up from a low of 14%
before the change to 45% today. Budgets are passed on
time. Voter participation and registration has begun
to rebound, with a 48% voter turnout in California's
June 2016 primary which took place after the
presidential primaries were virtually over.
In short, HB 200 is Alaska's chance to finally win
back its open primary. We urge you to support it and
are happy to advise and assist in its passage any way
possible. Thank you.
3:16:56 PM
ANDREW SINCLAIR, PhD, Clinical Assistant Professor, New York
University Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, paraphrased
from his written testimony, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
I am a Clinical Assistant Professor at NYU's Wagner
Graduate School of Public Service. My teaching
responsibilities include courses in public policy and
quantitative research methodology. Beyond teaching I
conduct research on public policy, electoral
institutions, political behavior, and democratic
accountability in the United States and in Britain.
In addition to academic articles, I am also the author
of Nonpartisan Primary Election Reform: Mitigating
Mischief, a book published with my coauthor R. Michael
Alvarez through Cambridge University Press in 2015.
This book focuses on the nonpartisan "top-two" primary
in California, a subject of my continuing scholarly
activities as well. I hold a PhD and MS in Social
Science from the California Institute of Technology
and a BA in Mathematics and Government from Claremont
McKenna College.
(1). California has used the nonpartisan election rule
in 2012, 2014, and 2016. That is enough to say
something - but there is still considerable
disagreement among political scientists about what to
look at and what to made of the new rules.
(2). California's version of the top-two is very
simple: the two candidates with the most votes advance
to the general election. Voters can choose any
candidate in the primary.
(3). Roughly 15% of the time two candidates of the
same party face each other in the general election.
Most of the time, the general elections look like what
you would see under the old system.
(4). From my own research, it appears that the general
elections between candidates of the same party are
more competitive and happen in the very places we
typically see uncompetitive elections.
(5). For some of the other considerations people
think about - participation, moderation as examples -
it is a little less clear how the top-two works or how
the CA experience would translate to Alaska. I have
not seen compelling evidence that the top-two
disadvantages minorities or other underrepresented
groups; we looked for this in our 2015 book but did
not find anything.
(6). Most of what the top-two does seems to happen
through pairing candidates in a different way rather
than vastly changing the way voters behave in the
primary. In my research, generally we found voters
picked the candidate that they knew about that they
also liked the most (rather than behave in some
complicated strategic way).
(7). Some voters like the new rules while others do
not. Many echo the uncertainty of the political
scientists about what to expect from the top-two.
(8). Any reform will come with some advantages (as in
increased competition) and disadvantages (some voters
might wish they had a candidate of their own party on
the general election ballot). It is only my job to
assess "how" the system works - not to make
recommendations, so I take no position on HB200.
I would be delighted to be in touch with any of the
legislators (for HB200 or against it) to provide
further information. I would be able to answer
questions not only about California's and Washington's
experience with the nonpartisan top-two system but
also about primary elections and election rules more
generally in the United States.
Thank you for including me in this hearing and giving
me an opportunity to tell you about my work.
3:22:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH requested Mr. Sinclair's testimony in
writing. He opined that the proposed legislation is a solution
in search of a problem. He asked for more explanation as to the
motivation behind HB 200.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX responded that constituents have expressed
to her their frustration for not being allowed to vote for the
candidates of their choice, as they used to be able to do. She
said the public is particularly dismayed that the state is
paying over $1 million to conduct primary elections for private
entities. The reason republicans and democrats may close their
primaries is because the court ruled that these political
parties are more like private clubs that do not have to accept
the votes of people who do not belong to that club or who belong
to another club. She asked, "So if you take that for face
value, then why is the state paying for these primaries?" She
maintained that was the concern of her constituents.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH responded, "Aside from the obvious rather
self-serving nature of this legislation, and I would note the
Republican Democrat thing was solved in Shungnak by just giving
everybody one of each ballot, but I'm not sure that that passed
muster exactly."
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for clarification of "self-serving."
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH explained that the party chooses the
process for advancing a capable and competent candidate. He
relayed that the current process for the Republican party [in
Alaska} is that all individuals who are not affiliated with
another party are free to vote the Republican ballot. He
asserted that the public is best served when a candidate is
advanced in a primary process. He conceded that the state does
pay for it, and it can be debated as to whether there even
should be a primary. He maintained that HB 200 would not be a
good solution.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX, referring to Representative Birch's
comment that the proposed legislation is self-serving, clarified
that HB 200, if passed, would be effective for the 2020
election; therefore, it has nothing to do with the 2018 election
or her.
3:27:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked if the intent is to return to the
open primary system. He relayed his understanding of the
process under the proposed legislation: there would be one
ballot, not two; all the candidates' names would be on the one
ballot; and the top two vote getters would advance to the
general election. He said that he doesn't envision Alaska
removing itself from the primary system process. He asked if
the candidates would still list their party affiliations. He
asked also if there could be a governor of one party and a
lieutenant governor of another party. He questioned whether
that scenario would be good for the state.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX confirmed that under the proposed
legislation, there would be one ballot, and all candidates'
names would be on that one ballot. She maintained that the
difference between what is proposed and what occurred prior to
2000 is that prior to 2000, all candidates were on one ballot;
the Republican with the most votes, the Democrat with the most
votes, and the Libertarian with the most votes all advanced to
the general election ballot. Under HB 200, the top two vote
getters would advance to the general election, regardless of
their party affiliation. She said that party affiliation may or
may not be included on the ballot depending on the will of the
candidate. She responded to the question about electing a split
ticket by saying that it could happen under the proposed
legislation, but it can happen currently as well.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP suggested that the primary would still be
operated by the state, so there would be no cost savings for the
state.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX agreed but inserted that that under the
proposed legislation, the state would not be financing a private
entity's nomination process.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP relayed one of the arguments of Republicans
advocating for a closed primary at the time of the 2000 court
case: Democrats will vote for a "weak" Republican candidate who
could more readily be defeated in a general election. He asked
if that is a concern.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered that her experience with both
political parties convinces her that neither are organized
enough to "pull that off."
3:32:04 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked what the motivation was for the
California Democratic Party to sue to keep its primary closed.
MR. OLSON referred to the question on cross-over voting and
pointed out that Mr. Sinclair mentioned that he has studied this
in detail and it has not occurred. In answer to Representative
Kreiss-Tomkins, Mr. Olson relayed that the California Democratic
Party sued because of the belief that it is politically
advantageous to the establishment of the party to rein in
control of who could participate in its primary process. In
1996, California voters passed Proposition 198, which copied
Alaska's "blanket" open primary system. Not long after that,
the suit was filed by the California Democratic Party, which was
supported by the other parties as well. The political parties
did not want anyone but their members controlling who advances
to the general election. They argued, successfully, that
because they are private entities, the state could not regulate
their primary processes; the decision was seven to two; it cast
a shadow over every partisan open primary in the country. He
asserted that state funding of primaries was not introduced by
the defense in the case. He added that as a result, people
looking for a new system have embraced the public system that
copies Nebraska's "top-two" system.
3:35:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK commented that using state funds to pay for
private self-interest primaries makes no sense to him. He
maintained that a Republican can fill out a Republican and
Democratic ballot, because there is no limitation on the open
primary ballots. He opined that one reason for allowing an open
primary was to allow smaller parties to "gain traction." He
asserted that any party who wants a closed primary should
reimburse Alaska for the cost of doing so, or party
organizations should conduct their own primaries as is done in
the presidential election. In that case, party members would
decide on the candidate from the local level on up to the
national level. He stated that he believes that the passage of
HB 200 would get Alaska back to the open primary process where
people have a choice and are not limited. He maintained that
often people are not voting for the party but for the
individual; and the opportunity to vote for the individual is
removed with the closed primary system that currently exists.
3:37:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated that as an independent, his wife can
vote a Republican ballot; however, if she does vote a Republican
ballot, she is prevented from voting for anyone on the
Democratic ballot. He relayed a situation brought to his
attention by letters included in the committee packet: in a
predominantly Republican district, four Republicans and two
Democrats run for office in the primary; because there are so
many Republican candidates, the Democrats are the top two vote
getters; the people in that predominantly Republican district
feel they are not represented by the candidates.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX answered that theoretically there could be
many different scenarios. She said that in the 2014 U.S. Senate
election in Alaska, which is a predominantly Republican state,
there were three major candidates running in the Republican
primary and one Democrat running. She maintained that under the
top two system proposed by HB 200, the race would have been
former U.S. Senator Mark Begich versus Dan Sullivan. She
pointed out that the results would not always be affected. She
suggested that even though one could come up with all kinds of
scenarios - like 12 Republicans and 2 Democrats running in a
primary - most likely that is not what would occur.
3:40:39 PM
MR. OLSON addressed the scenario in which the two Democratic
candidates are the top vote getters in a primarily Republican
district. He said that in California and Washington, with over
1,200 elections under this system, there have been three to five
times that this scenario has played out. He opined that when
that does happen, the elected official works very hard to reach
out to the opposing party, because he/she wants to retain
his/her seat.
MR. SINCLAIR concurred and said that in California that has
occurred in about 1 in 500 elections; and the one election, in
which it occurred, was influenced by redistricting.
3:43:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK suggested that HB 200 should have a negative
fiscal note, because it would avoid the printing of two separate
ballots; it would avoid having to estimate how many of each
ballot to print; and it would avoid having to estimate how many
ballots to send to each voting location.
3:44:35 PM
COURTNEY ENRIGHT, Staff, Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative LeDoux, prime
sponsor of HB 200, relayed that there would be a cost savings
related to the number of ballots printed; however,
implementation costs for the new system would also be expected.
Under the proposed system, if there is a special election, there
would need to be a primary and a runoff election. She relayed
that while there is an expected savings of close to $100,000 per
election under the system proposed, it is negated due to the
other cost factors.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS mentioned that Louisiana has had a general
primary for quite some time and asked if that state is analogous
to what is being proposed.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX replied that Louisiana's "jungle" primary
is slightly different in that if one candidate in the primary
gets 51 percent of the vote or greater, then that person has won
the election, and there would be no general election; it is not
a top two "runoff" system.
MR. OLSON confirmed that Louisiana's system is different from a
top two system in that technically there is no primary; everyone
runs in the general election and like a municipal election, if
no one receives 50 percent of the vote, then there is a runoff
election. He maintained that the challenge with Louisiana's
system is that the runoff election often has low turnout,
because it occurs in late November or early December. He stated
that the Louisiana system is different from a top two system; a
top two system is a proper primary system; and although there
are similarities, there are marked differences as well.
MR. SINCLAIR concurred.
3:47:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to the situation in the [House]
District 40 race last year; there were multiple ballots, and
people wanted to choose from all candidates. He stated that the
single ballot under HB 200 would eliminate that frustration.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX claimed that the proposed legislation
would certainly make the process more efficient.
MR. SINCLAIR pointed out another difference under a nonpartisan
top two system with a single ballot: In Alaska's old blanket
primary system, if a political party had only one candidate,
that candidate would be guaranteed to advance; therefore, there
would be no "cost" to voting for the weakest candidate in the
other party's primary. That system has now been declared
unconstitutional. In the nonpartisan top two system, if someone
voted for a weak candidate of another party, he/she would put at
risk his/her preferred candidate. He maintained there would be
less strategic behavior under the top two system than under the
old system.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if the jungle primary is ever used in
conjunction with "ranked-choice" voting; if one chose to vote
for a more obscure candidate, he/she could vote for a second
more mainstream choice so as not to throw away his/her vote.
MR. OLSON answered that it is not currently done; it could be
used in the first round of voting; and it has been proposed in
some areas. He clarified that the jungle primary refers to the
Louisiana system; the Nebraska style top two primary system was
adopted by California and Washington after losing the blanket
open primary system.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 200 would be held over.
3:50:33 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:51
p.m.