Legislature(2019 - 2020)DAVIS 106
06/30/2020 09:00 AM 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 | |
| Presentation(s): Alaska's Better Election Initiative | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
June 30, 2020
9:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Co-Chair (via
teleconference)
Representative Zack Fields, Co-Chair (via teleconference)
Representative Grier Hopkins (via teleconference)
Representative Andi Story (via teleconference)
Representative Sarah Vance (via teleconference)
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Laddie Shaw
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Sara Hannan (via teleconference)
Representative Andy Josephson (via teleconference)
Representative Geran Tarr (via teleconference)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): ALASKA'S BETTER ELECTION INITIATIVE
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
SHEA SIEGERT, Campaign Manager & Spokesperson
Alaskans for Better Elections
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-provided a presentation titled "Alaskans
Vote Yes on 2 for Better Elections."
SCOTT KENDALL, Attorney/Advisor
Alaskans for Better Elections
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-provided a presentation titled "Alaskans
Vote Yes on 2 for Better Elections."
KAY BROWN
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented her concerns with Ballot Measure
2 during the presentation on Alaska's Better Election
Initiative.
GLENN CLARY, Chair
Alaska Republican Party
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented his concerns with Ballot Measure
2 during the presentation on Alaska's Better Election
Initiative.
ACTION NARRATIVE
9:04:20 AM
CO-CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 9:04 a.m.
Representatives Hopkins (via teleconference), Vance (via
teleconference), Fields (via teleconference), and Kreiss-Tomkins
(via teleconference) were present at the call to order.
Representative Story (via teleconference) arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
^PRESENTATION(S): ALASKA'S BETTER ELECTION INITIATIVE
PRESENTATION(S): ALASKA'S BETTER ELECTION INITIATIVE
9:04:24 AM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the only order of
business would be a presentation on Alaska's Better Election
Initiative.
9:06:28 AM
SHEA SIEGERT, Campaign Manager & Spokesperson, Alaskans for
Better Elections, co-provided a presentation titled "Alaskans
Vote Yes on 2 for Better Elections." He said Ballot Measure 2
would appear on the ballot in the November [2020 General
Election].
9:08:22 AM
SCOTT KENDALL, Attorney/Advisor, Alaskans for Better Elections,
as co-provider of the presentation, turned to slide 2 and
explained that Ballot Measure 2 would make three reforms to
Alaska's election system. The first reform, he said, would
strengthen financial disclosure for independent expenditure
groups in Alaska. In a sense it would prohibit dark money,
which is money that to the voter appears anonymous. Dark money
comes through an independent expenditure group that may have
gotten that money from yet another group, but the ultimate
source of donations is often unknown. This is an artifact of
the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ("Citizens
United") case passed in 2010 by the U.S. Supreme Court that
allowed unlimited spending in candidate campaigns for the very
first time; it was said that the disclosure of who is spending
the money will be the solution and basically sanitized this
spending. However, Mr. Kendall continued, state level statutes
have never quite caught up to the state of the art of what
Citizens United did. So, Ballot Measure 2 is a reform that says
if someone gives their money to say, the American Chamber of
Commerce, and the chamber then gives the money to an independent
expenditure group, then reporting on that is going to go all the
way back to whoever is the ultimate source of the funds. No
longer will these funds be anonymous.
MR. KENDALL said the second reform is to go back to Alaska's
tradition in the sense of open primaries to have a "top-4 open
primary." Up until about 2000 Alaska had a "blanket primary,"
which is when every candidate appears on a ballot and yet the
party candidates still run against one another. The U.S.
Supreme Court ruled that unconstitutional. Since then, pure
open primaries - in which all candidates are on a single ballot,
all voters can vote the ballot, and the top finishers are chosen
- have been approved by the U.S. Supreme Court. Ballot Measure
2 puts every candidate on the same ballot, and the top four
finishers move on to the General Election.
MR. KENDALL said the third reform is that the General Election
takes place with what is called "ranked choice voting" (RCV) or
"instant runoff voting." This would give voters the option to
vote for the candidate of their choice just like they do now if
they choose to. However, they will have the option of ranking
their choices one, two, three, and so on. If the person that
they supported in first place comes in last, their vote will
then be tabulated for their second-place vote, and so on. This
assures that any winning candidate has a majority of support,
essentially 50 percent plus 1.
9:11:24 AM
MR. SIEGERT displayed slide 3, titled "Ending 'Dark Money.'" He
brought attention to the symbol on the left side of the slide
labeled "true source" and explained that true source is defined
as the person who earned or inherited the money. Under the
current system, the true source gives money to an intermediary
group, a shell company that is set up four or five months out of
a campaign. That shell group then gives to an independent
expenditure group in Alaska, at no limits whatsoever and at
complete anonymity for the true source as to who is spending in
the political industry in Alaska. It is the intermediary group,
not the true source, that shows up under the financial
disclosure reports at the Alaska Public Offices Commission
(APOC), which leaves voters out and leaves them with no ability
to truly know who is spending to influence their vote during the
campaign year in Alaska. Ballot Measure 2 would end the dark
money and shine a light on the true source of where the money
being spent in Alaska is coming from.
9:14:40 AM
MR. SIEGERT moved to slide 4 titled "Top-4 Open Primary" and
noted he is part of the 62 percent of Alaskans who choose not to
register with either party. He chose to be a non-partisan, he
continued, but when he goes to the August primary the State of
Alaska requires that he must be a partisan and must choose
between one of the two semi-closed primaries. This leaves 62
percent of the registered voters in Alaska out of the process,
it doesn't give them the freedom to choose between the parties.
For example, he cannot vote for a Republican for U.S. Senate and
vote for a Democrat for the Alaska House of Representatives.
This is what the Top-4 Open Primary is aimed at.
MR. SIEGERT turned to Slide 5 titled "Top-4, Single-Ballot, Open
Primaries." He drew attention to a list of many candidates in
the primary with candidates of numerous parties. He explained
that all of these candidates would be on the same primary ballot
and there would be four winners in the primary election. These
four winners would then move on to the General Election. This
creates a standard so that voters aren't treated differently
based on their party registration. Also, he continued, it
doesn't treat candidates differently based on their party
registration. Currently, a candidate who chooses not to run in
either primary is a petition candidate who must get signatures.
There is no standard by which to get to the General Election
based on party line, so what people will do is show up as a
petition candidate on the General Election. [The initiative] is
saying "no, every candidate no matter their party registration
needs to show up on a ballot and needs to get enough votes to
get to the General Election."
9:17:21 AM
MR. SIEGERT showed slide 6 titled "Ranked Choice Voting Example
Ballot" and drew attention to the example ballot. Under the
initiative, he explained, people will rank their choices when
they go to the General Election. There will be a fourth choice
on the right-hand side and then a Candidate D at the bottom, so
it can be seen how the voter ranks their choices.
MR. SIEGERT reviewed slides 7-9, titled "Ranked Choice Voting
General Election," and explained how this type of voting is
tabulated. Addressing slide 7 depicting Results-Part 1, he
noted that none of the four winners in the example of voting
results has broken the 50 percent threshold of the votes. In
the example, Candidate John Doe is in last place and so is
eliminated. Turning to slide 8 depicting Results-Part 2 of the
example voting results, he explained that [this one voter in the
example] preferred Candidate John Doe, who is eliminated. This
one voter's [second] choice is Candidate Pizza Dough, so this
voter's vote goes to Pizza Dough as the voter's next preferred
choice. But still, no candidate has yet reached the 50 percent
threshold, so Candidate Cookie Dough is then the next person to
be eliminated. Mr. Siegert moved to slide 9 depicting Results-
Part 3 and explained that when Cookie Dough is eliminated, all
of Cookie Dough's voters chose Pizza Dough as the next best
choice; so, all of those voters go to Pizza Dough and Pizza
Dough ends up with 62 percent of the electorate. This means
that a candidate cannot win a General Election without the
majority of the vote. A candidate must campaign to all of the
voters within their district, not just to those with the same
letter next to their name as the candidate's. This opens up
voter information and puts the burden of campaigning back on the
candidate to make sure that they are talking to all the
registered voters within their district and making sure that
they are elected with a true majority of the electorate.
MR. SIEGERT displayed slide 10 titled "Voter Confusion?" and
outlined how this voting method works in Maine, a state that
passed it in 2016. In the Maine election, he said, 99 percent
of voters were not confused and voted flawlessly. In Portland,
Maine, the first year after ranked choice voting (RCV) was
enacted on the municipal level, 94 percent of voters surveyed
said they fully understood the ballot design. Currently, 22
cities in the U.S. and one state use RCV. If Ballot Measure 2
is passed, $150,000 will go to voter education and ensuring that
people understand how to rank their candidates one through four.
MR. SIEGERT recounted that in the 2008 Alaska Democratic
presidential primary 8,880 voters voted, in 2016 10,610 voters
voted, and in 2020 when RCV and a mail-in ballot were used close
to 20,000 people voted. In a KTUU article on April 10, 2020,
Alaska Democratic Party chair Casey Steinau said it allows
people's votes to count and people won't feel they are wasting
their vote because they know they can vote for the candidate of
their choosing who actually represents them. It also ensures
that people know the candidates on the ballot and that the
winner of the primary or the general is going to have over 50
percent support.
9:22:12 AM
MR. KENDALL elaborated on slide 11 titled "Other Benefits." He
said an indirect benefit of this reform is an eased transition
to vote by mail. This is because the number of ballots for the
primary is reduced from two, and possibly three if there are
ballot measures, to one ballot. The Division of Elections, he
related, has said the major barrier [to vote by mail] is sending
two ballots to all unaffiliated voters since it is unknown which
ballot they want. With RCV there would be just one ballot.
MR. KENDALL stated that the second benefit of this reform is
that it would make partisan redistricting obsolete. The purpose
for doing a census every 10 years, he continued, is to rebalance
populations between house districts and senate districts while
at the same time keeping communities intact. In Alaska and
every state in the U.S., redistricting has devolved into a
partisan exercise where whatever party has control of the most
seats on the redistricting board attempts to impact the other
party's voters and do as few districts as possible and thereby
gain an advantage in the legislature. Both parties have engaged
in this in Alaska's history. Partisan redistricting becomes a
zero-sum game in a system where voters have four choices and can
rank those choices instead of having two choices. Redistricting
reverts back to what it should be, which is simply a rebalancing
of populations.
MR. KENDALL said the third benefit of this reform is that it is
proven to elect a more diverse group of elected officials who
reflect their communities. This has been seen in municipalities
that have enacted RCV and studies have found that in the ranked
choice communities the diversity of the elected officials
reflected the populace. That is a benefit to the electorate in
a diverse state like Alaska.
9:26:10 AM
MR. KENDALL stated that the fourth benefit is increased turnout.
Some of the states that have gone to an open primary have seen
an instant 50 percent increase in primary turnout. A great
thing about enhanced primary turnout is that almost all of those
voters turn into General Election voters.
MR. KENDALL added that the fifth benefit is creation of a safe
bipartisan space for big solutions to Alaska's big challenges.
For example, a Democratic legislator may know that there needs
to be a bipartisan compromise on a spending cap on Alaska's
budget. The legislator can work on that if it is known that it
reflects the wishes of the legislator's entire district and they
won't face a closed primary where they may be taken out for that
reason. Legislators cannot be punished by, say, 5 percent of
their district for something that much of the district wants.
MR. KENDALL moved to slide 12, titled "Constitutionality," and
stated that every part of Ballot Measure 2 has been in binding
case law. He said RCV has been upheld by the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals, the highest court with governance over Alaska
short of the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2011, RCV was upheld in
whole in Dudum v. Arntz. In this case the court ruled that RCV
doesn't violate the principle of one person, one vote, and it
doesn't diminish anyone's vote.
MR. KENDALL said there has been discussion that open primaries
aren't lawful, but he thinks this is confusion about the old
"blanket" primary system that was ruled unconstitutional. Open
primaries, as written in Ballot Measure 2, were upheld by the
U.S. Supreme Court's 2012 ruling on Washington State Republican
Party v. Washington State Grange.
MR. KENDALL, in regard to financial disclosures, explained that
disclosure of dark money is embedded in the Citizens United
case. This 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision allowed unlimited
spending, but also actually said that whatever kind of
disclosure is wanted can be forced, but speech cannot be
stopped.
MR. KENDALL further pointed out that the single subject
challenge in Alaska was raised at the outset in [Kevin Meyer, et
al v. Alaskans for Better Elections (2020)]. Alaskans for
Better Elections prevailed in superior court and recently
prevailed in the Alaska Supreme Court in that although it has
three components, the Better Elections Initiative is on the
single subject of election reform to improve Alaska's elections.
Now, every constitutional barrier is out of the way and the
measure is on the ballot this November.
MR. SIEGERT concluded the presentation. He said the goal is to
return competition and return free market elections to Alaska.
These policies are encompassed in Ballot Measure 2, he added,
which will be on the election in November.
9:30:24 AM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS invited the next witness, Ms. Kay Brown,
to testify.
9:32:18 AM
KAY BROWN stated she is speaking today as an individual. She
noted that she served 10 years in the Alaska House of
Representatives and has worked on elections in a number of
professional and volunteer capacities since the early 1980s.
She stated she is deeply concerned about Ballot Measure 2 for
several reasons, but today she will focus her remarks on some of
the issues that have not yet been much discussed.
MS. BROWN disagreed that all the constitutional barriers have
been resolved. She said she believes there are constitutional
conflicts that likely will be challenged if this ballot measure
passes. The initiative conflicts with the Alaska State
Constitution and the constitution cannot be amended by
initiative.
MS. BROWN said a second area of concern is that the measure is
needlessly complicated and confusing. At 25 pages long its
plethora of changes will likely have unintended consequences.
She offered her belief that if Alaskans are going to pass this
measure, they have a right to understand the entire proposal,
but she doesn't know how that will happen because there is no
real evaluation of the changes proposed. Who will provide that
clarity? She hears some of the goals stated by the proposers
such as transparency and openness, but questions whether this is
the right solution for Alaska at this time.
MS. BROWN elaborated regarding unconstitutional issues. She
said the initiative's requirement that the lieutenant governor
must run as a team with the gubernatorial candidate in the
primary directly conflicts with the Alaska State Constitution,
Article III, Section 8, which provides that the lieutenant
governor shall be nominated in the manner provided by law for
nominating candidates for other elective offices. For other
elective offices, candidates run in stand-alone party primaries
in order to be nominated by their party. There is no provision
in the initiative to nominate a lieutenant governor, which is a
legal problem. She argued that another legal problem resides in
Article III, Section 3, which states, "The governor shall be
chosen by the qualified voters of the State at a General
Election. The candidate receiving the greatest number of votes
shall be governor." She said "the greatest number of votes" is
referring to a plurality system, which is what is had now in
state races in Alaska and most local races, and a majority is
not required for election, as would be mandated by this
initiative. The constitutional conflicts are serious legal
flaws that could invalidate the proposal if it were to be
challenged in court after adoption. The attorney general in the
single subject challenge that was recently addressed by the
Alaska Supreme Court did not raise these issues.
MS. BROWN said the proposal's complexity is another concern. It
is exceptionally complicated for a ballot measure, she stated.
It is 25 pages long with 74 sections, and it's not clear what
much of it does. It appears to be a cobbled together hodge-
podge of requirements and changes that are needlessly
complicated and confusing. Part of it may be good, but this is
not well thought out. This initiative was brought forward by a
group of Alaskans who are backed by outside interests who are
eager to bring their national agenda to Alaska. Alaska's
election system isn't perfect, she continued, but it isn't
broken in any fundamental sense that this initiative addresses.
Alaska's election system is considered nationally to be a model
system compared to many other systems in the U.S. because of its
centralized structure. If anything is broken it is the
initiative process. This measure illustrates the difficulty of
dealing with complex issues and lengthy statute changes by
initiative process. It appears this initiative was put together
without much or any public comment from Alaskans and some
important elements have been overlooked. She has tried to read
and understand this initiative and she has found it quite
frustrating. Where is the detailed explanation of what this
initiative would do?
9:37:57 AM
MS. BROWN said the committee has heard today about three of the
main topics in the initiative, but what about the dozens of
other changes that are proposed? What substantive provisions
are included in the 22 statutes that are repealed by Section 72?
Many of these provisions have not been explained or justified.
For example, changes are proposed to the appointment procedures
for poll watchers, precinct counting boards, absentee and
questioned ballot review boards, and the Alaska Public Offices
Commission (APOC). What is the rationale for these changes and
how would the operations of these entities be affected? This
initiative applies ranked choice method of voting to the
election of presidential electors. How would that work? Would
the names of specific presidential electors appear on the ballot
and who nominates them? This initiative appears to set up a new
two-step election process when it becomes necessary to replace
state senators, governor, lieutenant governor, and members of
congress and the senate. How would this work? What exactly is
this process that is being set up and how is it different from
the way these positions are filled now when there is a vacancy?
Why is this new process proposed to apply to state senators but
not to state house representatives?
MS. BROWN stated that another issue relates to the notices that
must appear in written pamphlets in public polling places
essentially saying that party labels don't mean anything. Why
is this necessary? Referring to Section 11, she said there are
new disclosure rules for broadcast digital and other
communications that require a lengthy paid-for-by statement to
remain onscreen throughout the entirety of the communication.
Is that really feasible? And to what communications exactly
would that apply? Another point is that the initiative amends
the definition of political party and creates confusion about
the difference between political parties and political groups.
Why are political groups added throughout the statutes? If
political parties no longer have specific rights and duties, why
not just merge parties and groups?
9:40:43 AM
MS. BROWN addressed the open primary system. She said Alaska
has an open primary system as does the Democratic Party, but the
Republicans choose not to participate and have a closed system.
This initiative as structured would transform the primary
dramatically into an ineffective winnowing that seems to have no
real point. This provides that the top four candidates advance,
yet most races in Alaska seldom have more than four candidates.
So, what is the point? Where does the top-four-advance concept
come from? It appears that this is being forwarded by national
interests as a proposed solution to the top-two-advance system
used in California and Washington State, which has unintended
consequences and problems, and so they want to make Alaska a
guinea pig for fixing problems with the process in those other
states. This initiative would establish one open primary for
candidate advance without regard to party or even declaring a
party. She called attention to Section 21, which appears to
allow candidates to hide their party affiliation from voters by
choosing to be listed as undeclared partisan even if the
candidate does have a party registration. Is that the intent of
this provision? Eliminating party labels is not going to
increase transparency or improve voters' understanding about
where candidates stand. Labels mean something and parties stand
for something.
MS. BROWN pointed out that there is a lot of confusion about the
dark money provisions in Section 17 and what that applies to.
The core question is, Does it apply to corporations and, if no,
why not and why aren't corporations held to the same standards?
Does it apply to ballot measure groups and would it apply to
this group, Alaskans for Better Elections? There is confusion
about how the provision would be implemented. How does this
initiative affect candidates who spend less than $5,000 a year?
She noted that Alaska Administrative Code, 2 AAC 50.258, already
deals with the true source of contributions. What exactly is
being changed, she continued, and how does this compare with the
existing requirements?
MS. BROWN summarized by saying that Ballot Measure 2 impacts all
Alaskans and fundamental voting rights. She said everyone who
has any capacity working in elections is going to have to put
significant effort into trying to understand and comply with it.
It is going to have a broad impact across the spectrum of
voters, candidates, the groups that work with them, and all the
people who would administer this. It isn't clear how the
provisions in this proposal interact with existing processes or
why some are being proposed. It is complicated, confusing,
poorly explained, and legally flawed and it needs more work to
adopt for use in Alaska.
9:45:24 AM
GLENN CLARY, Chair, Alaska Republican Party, stated the
initiative is incorrectly titled because it is anything but
better. He urged every Alaskan to vote no on Ballot Measure 2.
He said the initiative is extremely inferior compared to
Alaska's current election system. The initiative would destroy
the very foundations of freedoms that Alaska was founded upon.
Alaska's present system of electing those to represent Alaskans
was established by sovereign Alaskans working together in trust
and unity, constitutionally guaranteeing every Alaskan the right
to one vote under a system that continues to operate without
flaws and fraud. The initiative being discussed today was
conceived in private by a select few whose desire is to
dismantle and destroy all that sovereign Alaskans hold dear
regarding their election system.
MR. CLARY pointed out that the 25-page initiative proposes 17
major changes to existing state statutes and 75 section
amendments to Alaska election laws in order to codify the
initiative into law if it garners enough votes to become law.
He said Alaska's constitution provides for representative form
of government to initiate, debate, hold hearings, and pass
legislation to govern the state. The drafting of this
disastrous document did not have its origins in the spotlight of
public view. This initiative was not weathered with house and
senate committee hearings, public testimony, town hall meetings,
or legislative floor amendments and votes. This initiative is a
complicated document, and it is difficult to understand all the
devious consequences designed by its select, private, elite
authors. A change of this magnitude to Alaska's election system
deserves full debate and disclosure. Anyone signing the
petition to place this initiative on the ballot should have been
required to read it in its entirety and the majority of people
would not have signed the petition. Legislation this important
mandates complete public education, not just catch phrases and
sound bites like "better elections" and "stop dark money."
MR. CLARY charged that Ballot Measure 2 is unconstitutional on
several fronts. In 2000, he said, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
that the California blanket primary is unconstitutional and
violates the First Amendment rights of freedom of association.
Alaska outlawed the blanket primary, but this initiative would
dictate the unconstitutional open primary. In 2008 the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled that political parties have the right to
offer voting to self-identified members and not to the general
public. This initiative would destroy Alaska's two-ballot
process, along with the constitutional right of freedom of
association. Several rulings of the supreme court have defined
first amendment rights of freedom of speech, which includes
spending one's money as one sees fit in campaigns. This
inferior initiative includes a clause supporting an amendment to
the U.S. Constitution to allow citizens to regulate money in
Alaska's elections; it is located in the center of page 1. This
initiative wants to override the rulings of the U.S. Supreme
Court. If passed this initiative would be unconstitutional
regarding the Alaska State Constitution, Article III, Section 3,
which states that the governor will be elected by a plurality of
votes. This initiative would elect a governor via a ranked
voting system.
MR. CLARY drew attention to page 1, Section 1, of the initiative
which reads: "The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is
amended by adding a section to read: FINDINGS AND INTENT. The
People of the State of Alaska find" He said this section goes
on to list five inaccurate statements claiming that the people
of Alaska hold true. However, he continued, the people of
Alaska had no input, no voice, no authorship, no representation,
and no participation in the development of this document. It
was written by a few to confuse the masses into voting for it.
Ballot Measure 2 would destroy the existing election system in
Alaska.
MR. CLARY argued that the initiative has three components
designed to disenfranchise voters. He said the portion of the
initiative commonly known as the "jungle primary" is created to
confuse and even mislead voters by masking the party affiliation
of the candidate. No candidate party affiliation is mandated to
appear on a ballot or general ballot. The Division of Elections
(DOE) cannot include a candidate's primary affiliation unless
the candidate sends a written letter to the DOE demanding that
their party affiliation appears on the ballot, which is
incomprehensible. Voters deserve to know that for which a
candidate stands. A part of a candidate's identity and position
relates to the party with which the candidate affiliates.
Section 22 of the initiative requires the state to campaign for
candidates and neutralizes a candidate's party affiliation by
forcing the DOE to place signs, notices, and paragraphs at
polling places on the ballot that state: "A candidate's
designated affiliation does not imply that the candidate is
nominated or endorsed by the political party or political group
or that the political party or political group approves of or
associates with that candidate, but only that the candidate is
registered as affiliated with the party or group." Mr. Clary
questioned what right the state has to define and identify what
a candidate does or does not believe about his/her affiliation
with a political party or group. This removes the right of
every candidate to self-identify with the party or group of
their choosing. He stated that this is communistic and should
be stopped. He opined that voters should be extremely upset
about this and should vote no on the initiative when they cast
their ballot.
MR. CLARY said the segment calling for ranked choice voting in
the General Election forces Alaskans to vote for candidates in
addition to the candidate of their choice. Any of the
individuals can emerge as a winner while an arbitrary process of
elimination jettisons other candidates. All of this further
disenfranchises voters by watering down the power of the
individual vote.
MR. CLARY said Section 25, Item 3, of the initiative deletes an
important existing statute. The initiative removes the existing
statute that says if a voter marks fewer names than there are
persons to be elected to the office, a vote shall be counted for
each candidate properly marked. Alaskans will lose this right
of voting for just the candidate they support if this initiative
passes.
MR. CLARY stated that Section 37 of the initiative continues to
dismantle Alaska's election system. He said it amends the
statute to read: "The primary election does not serve to
determine the nominee of a political party or political group
but serves only to narrow the number of candidates whose names
will appear on the ballot at the General Election. Except as
provided in AS 15.25.100(d), only the four candidates who
receive the greatest number of votes for any office shall
advance to the General Election." He charged that political
parties would become extinct. There will be no need for
candidates or voters to affiliate or associate with one another
under a banner of common principles and ideals. If this
initiative passes, he continued, he can see the Republican Party
establishing a convention primary and petitioning the courts for
the freedom of association under the first amendment of the
constitution. Better election groups have fundamental rights to
raise money from any source that it believes in and from the
people who believe in what they're doing. That's why this group
can accept money from outside groups like the Tides Foundation.
They also have the right to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars
to local law firms whose partners, along with a former Alaska
legislator and former Alaska attorney general, helped draft and
support this devastating initiative. Ironically, the initiative
seeks to discard those freedoms.
MR. CLARY added that if Alaskans want to clean up their own
political smog, then they should resist this type of statute by
voting no. The initiative is an attempt by elitists to control
and dictate how Alaska should conduct its election process. He
opined that the individuals promoting these preposterous ideas
are intolerant to Alaska's representative form of government.
They seek to impose their will on the people of Alaska using the
initiative process, he said, because their concepts lack the
ability to stand on their own merits through the legislative
representative governmental process. It is a political shell
game to manipulate, rearrange, and diminish a person's vote,
paving the way for the elite to control the will of the people.
Voters want to decide for themselves who will represent them,
not a jungle-primary backroom sleight of hand process to
manipulate the voting process for the benefit of a few.
9:57:13 AM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS requested Mr. Kendall or Mr. Siegert to
speak to the points raised in Ms. Brown's testimony about the
constitutionality of Ballot Measure 2.
MR. KENDALL replied that one alleged conflict with the Alaska
State Constitution mentioned by Ms. Brown is that the lieutenant
governor is elected in the manner of governor. He said there is
no conflict because under the new system everyone is elected in
the same manner. So, in the manner clause, essentially this
becomes a reinforcement of what's gone on here. When that
change is made, they are both elected together through that same
top-four primary, so there is no conflict there; nor were raised
by Attorney General Clarkson. The second alleged conflict is
the idea that the constitution requires a plurality requirement
that a governor could be elected with 33 percent of the vote as
long as everyone else gets less. The Alaska State Constitution
says the governor shall be elected with the greatest number of
votes and greatest means the highest number of votes. Ballot
Measure 2 says the candidate receiving the greatest number of
votes through the final tabulation is the winner. There is no
conflict. It is apparent, he continued, that this conflict has
arisen out of Maine. He explained that Maine has a constitution
that actually says the governor and state legislators shall be
elected by a plurality a very different word with a different
meaning. Alaska's constitution has no such restriction and so
there is no such conflict, and no such conflict was raised by
the Alaska Department of Law or Attorney General Clarkson.
MR. KENDALL addressed the conflict that was raised regarding the
initiative being a violation of the party's rights of
association under the First Amendment. He said it is settled
law through the U.S. Supreme Court, with the 7-2 decision
written by Justice Clarence Thomas. It was settled that open
primaries, so long as they do not purport to elect the party's
official candidate, could be open primaries. The exact system
in the initiative is the system approved by the U.S. Supreme
Court. The disclaimers discussed by Mr. Clary in the voter
guide and otherwise are simply a reinforcement of the fact; it
is protective of the party's associational rights. It says they
are not the official candidate of the party simply because they
are not and cannot purport to be through this system. The
parties can go to convention and take their internal votes and
they can officially endorse a candidate. The disclaimers are
merely meant to protect those associational rights that Mr.
Clary and Ms. Brown are worried about.
10:02:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS requested Mr. Kendall or Mr. Siegert to
clarify how Ballot Measure 2 would impact the presidential
electors and how it would impact the poll workers and poll
watchers, as stated by Ms. Brown. He also asked how the section
that was mentioned by Ms. Brown would apply only to senators and
not to house representatives. He further asked why political
groups are not lumped in with political parties in statute and
whether this applies to corporations.
MR. KENDALL responded that he thinks presidential electors might
be a misunderstanding. He explained that the vote for president
would be conducted by ranked choice voting. Who Alaska's three
Electoral College votes go to will be determined through the
ranked choice vote. For example, in 1992 President Clinton was
running against President Bush and Ross Perot. When there is a
significant third-party candidate it is possible that none of
the candidates reaches a majority, he noted. So, if Clinton got
40 percent of the vote, Bush got 38 percent, and Perot got [22
percent], then Mr. Perot is in last place. The votes for Mr.
Perot in first place would now be assigned to a second-place
vote, which may result in Clinton or Bush winning. It is simply
running the same system that is run for all other races. The
three electors would go en masse by Alaska's rules, they would
not be split up like they are in some other states.
MR. KENDALL agreed poll watchers would be impacted but said poll
workers would not be impacted. With poll watchers, he
explained, ancillary changes were needed because this system
envisions a world in which the norm is not always two candidates
Democrat and Republican. It clarifies that a candidate doesn't
need party status to have a poll watcher there if the candidate
so desires, which makes sense and puts that candidate on equal
footing with a party candidate. It doesn't impact poll workers
at all. But for poll watchers it puts third party and no party
candidates on the same footing, so a candidate doesn't have to
have a party to have a person in the room, which should be the
right of all candidates.
10:06:22 AM
MR. KENDALL, in regard to Senate, but not House, special
elections, said there are some ancillary changes that make
Alaska's special elections, which are very rare, fall in line
with this new system. There is no disparate or intended
disparate difference between state Senate and House members. It
may just be the fact that state House members come up every two
years, obviating the need for these special elections. He
offered to get in touch with Ms. Brown to have a more nuanced
discussion in this regard.
MR. KENDALL, regarding political groups, said it is an ancillary
change like the poll watchers where there is a need to change.
This is related to how people are perhaps appointed to APOC and
other things. In a world where the parties are no longer sole
gatekeepers in a sense to the ballot, except for petition
candidates, there needs to be other methods of identifying what
a political party is than just a performance at the polls and so
that is how they will get their representation on APOC. The
parties will occupy a different sphere. Parties will have all
of their associational rights, all their rights to endorse
candidates, have official candidates, have their values, and
have their platforms. Some of these changes are merely the
adjustment necessary when they are no longer essentially acting
as gatekeepers to the ballot.
MR. KENDALL addressed the statements about the initiative being
25 pages long with lots of sections. He said the length of the
measure isn't a result of complication - "there's no hiding the
ball" - it's the result that the initiative's drafters, himself
included, made the specific choice to be entirely transparent,
so the measure looks like a bill that the legislature would
pass. It shows every deletion and every change that is
necessary, including the main change as well as the changes
necessary because of the unintended consequences. When creating
a new system of elections, it is necessary to delete a lot of
statutes because they describe the old system. Instead of
filing a two-page initiative that doesn't include all of the
drafting, all of the deletions, everything the legislature's
staff is going to have to do to enact it, [the initiative's
sponsors] chose to be extremely transparent. [The sponsors]
combed through the elections code and believe this is every
change that will occur under this new system; the initiative
isn't overly complicated; it is good drafting.
MR. KENDALL, regarding whether the measure applies to
corporations, surmised that this question is talking about the
"dark money" component. If that is the question, then, yes, it
applies. This applies to every donor, whether the donor is a
wealthy individual or a corporation. Whether the donor
inherited, earned, or created the money that is ultimately used
in the election, it is going to be reported as the ultimate
source. A corporation could be such an entity, so a corporation
is on the hook just as an individual is on the hook.
10:10:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS inquired whether Mr. Clary's belief is
correct that if all the General Election names are not filled
out in the order of one, two, three, or four as that voter's
choice, then that ballot would be thrown out.
MR. KENDALL replied that that is 100 percent false. He
explained that if a voter fills in only the first bubble for one
person, then it would count just like it counts today. That is
so clear that the statement appears even in the ballot summary
drafted by the attorney general and his attorneys. If a voter
wishes to vote for one candidate, the voter can.
10:11:17 AM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS requested Mr. Clary speak further to
Republican Party associational rights and how a Republican
convention primary would interact with Alaska election law,
especially should this initiative pass and become law.
[Mr. Clary did not respond as he was no longer online.]
10:12:47 AM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Brown whether Mr. Kendall's
response had answered her questions regarding poll watchers,
APOC, as well as her other questions.
MS. BROWN replied she is intuiting that the reason these changes
are proposed is that one of the goals of this initiative is to
minimize the role of political parties as Mr. Kendall said. She
said she thinks there will be a change in regard to poll
watchers, the precinct counting board, the absentee and
questioned counting boards, the current statutes provide for
basically bipartisan representation, and also the partisan
provisions for how people are appointed to the APOC. It isn't
clear, she continued, what the changes will look like for these
institutions that are now part of the process and how they will
be affected. If the parties are not the entities proposing for
those appointments, then how does that work and what does that
look like? Why are things related to these ancillary government
issues being changed?
10:15:30 AM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS recalled that a comment was raised about
how the dark money provisions would apply to the initiative
itself. He requested Mr. Siegert or Mr. Kendall address how, if
passed, this initiative would change how the initiative itself
would be treated under the law by the rules that it is
proposing.
MR. SIEGERT answered that it would apply exactly as Alaskans for
Better Elections is reporting right now, which is reporting to
APOC. He confirmed it would apply to Alaskans for Better
Elections. He explained that ballot initiatives in Alaska are
run through an independent expenditure group. Right now, his
group's financial disclosure can be found on APOC's website. As
well, his group's financial disclosure can be found on its own
website. The true source of the donations will be seen, and it
will be seen that hundreds of Alaskans have donated over the
past few months. When looking at the Division of Elections
[website] it will be seen that more than 40,000 Alaskans have
signed the petition and are the true backers of this initiative
and want to see it on the ballot in November.
MR. KENDALL allowed it is a little more nuanced than that. He
said the primary reason it is different is ballot measures have
always had unlimited contributions allowed. The legal thinking
being that a statute is a statute. The public can read a
statute and the statute can't be corrupted by overly generous
campaign contributions. Citizens United really changed the
regime for candidates and so that is the regime that Alaskans
for Better Elections focused on. He said Mr. Siegert is right
that even now Alaskans for Better Elections is complying with
the world as the group wishes it to be and is disclosing and
over-disclosing.
10:18:24 AM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS offered his understanding that Ms. Brown
is a former executive director of the Alaska Democratic Party
(ADP) and is familiar with the primary processes, although the
ADP's process differs from the Alaska Republican Party. He
requested Ms. Brown to speak to what convention primaries might
look like for one of the major political parties in Alaska to
pursue were Ballot Measure 2 to pass.
MS. BROWN replied she is not familiar with that from her tenure
with the Alaska Democratic Party and she isn't totally familiar
with what Mr. Clary was referring to for the Alaska Republican
Party. But, she said, it seems that there is no method within
the measure for a party to get its endorsed candidates to the
ballot or identified on the ballot as their endorsed candidate.
10:20:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether the ranked choice voting
system would impact local or municipal elections as well, or
only impact state elections.
MR. KENDALL responded that it would not. Municipal elections
are run under a different regime, he explained, a kind of open
primary where all candidates, for the most part in most
municipalities, appear on a single ballot. Then, absent getting
to a certain threshold, which in Anchorage he thinks is 45
percent, there is a runoff between the top two candidates.
Municipal elections are closer to the proposed system than to
the state system, but municipalities decide their own election
system. The team at Alaskans for Better Elections hopes that
municipalities will decide to follow the lead of the state once
the state enacts these reforms. The measure impacts how state
officials are elected - state senators, state representatives,
governor, lieutenant governor, and congressional delegation.
10:22:11 AM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS related a question received by text from
Representative Story, who is online and can hear but who cannot
be heard by the others online. In her text she asked how the
residents in states that are doing ranked choice voting have
felt about the results. She further asked how residents have
felt when a candidate is elected with a majority that includes
voters' second choices, meaning there is no outright winner of
the majority vote and so the second-choice votes have to be
tallied in to get to that clear majority.
MR. KENDALL answered that Maine is the only state currently
doing ranked choice voting as Alaska would. He noted that Maine
is politically like Alaska in that over 50 percent of residents
identify as independent of the two major parties. He further
noted that it is also in a number of municipalities; just
recently enacted in New York City with nearly 70 percent
support. It is on the ballot in Massachusetts for November,
like it is in Alaska. He said his group is unaware of any
jurisdiction where ranked choice voting has been enacted and
then changed back. Maine's ranked choice voting was passed by
popular initiative and the Maine legislature attempted to roll
it back to the original system and Maine voters on two occasions
enacted a referendum, essentially a people veto, to change it
back to ranked choice voting and to expand it to their
presidential race. He related a high-profile congressional race
in Maine where in the initial tabulation the Republican
candidate was in the lead with 42 or 43 percent of the vote, but
when the Independent candidate was eliminated the vast majority
of that candidate's votes went to the Democrat and the Democrat
ultimately narrowly won that race. The race was challenged in
court and was upheld; so, when challenged, the ranked choice
voting system worked.
10:25:41 AM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether Ms. Brown would like to
offer comments in regard to RCV systems in place in the U.S.
MS. BROWN replied that use of RCV at a state level is new and so
there isn't much history. She recounted that a similar proposal
- instant runoff voting - appeared on Alaska's 2002 ballot
primary and was defeated with 65 percent voting no.
10:26:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS, in regard to vote counting, recalled
that the Maine governor at that time complained the election was
stolen by a fishy calculation system, which is an algorithm
system for counting the votes to build up to a winner. He asked
what that calculation system would look like on the ballot in a
General Election, the speed of the results, and voter security.
MR. KENDALL responded that voter security would not be impacted
at all because Alaska has one of the most secure election
systems in that there is always a paper ballot. If results are
challenged, the paper ballots can be physically counted. He
said an algorithm is not used and described a visual for how the
counting works: in a race with three candidates the ballots are
put into three boxes, one for each candidate their first choice;
then, ballots for the candidate that is in last place are taken
out of that candidate's box and the second choice is looked at
and the ballot is placed accordingly into the boxes of the top
two candidates; when the count gets to 50 percent plus one, that
candidate is the winner. If 50 percent plus one is arrived at
in the initial tabulation, no other tabulation is necessary.
This method assures that the winning candidates are preferred by
a majority of the voters. It is ensuring majority rule rather
than the current situation where winning statewide candidates
and sometimes winning local district candidates can win with a
support in the thirtieth percentile. This results in the
candidate answering to a very small slice of their electorate or
to a closed primary electorate. The speed of tabulation can
happen very quickly, there isn't another runoff - the results
are tabulated and shown and then the next tabulation can be
shown virtually instantly. He noted that the Division of
Elections' newly acquired voting equipment is able to read
ranked choice ballots, so all the information can be captured on
election night and results received virtually as fast as they
are now, allowing for mailed ballots to come in after the fact.
10:30:04 AM
CO-CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether Representative Vance or
Representative Fields had any questions. Hearing no response,
he concluded the committee meeting. He related his intention
for the committee to continue to offer a forum on this
initiative for the rest of the year given the committee's
jurisdiction on elections.
10:32:10 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:32
a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Alaskans for Better Elections H STA 6.30.20.pdf |
HSTA 6/30/2020 9:00:00 AM |
Alaskans for Better Elections |
| Alaska Libertarian Party Alaskans for Better Elections 6.30.20.pdf |
HSTA 6/30/2020 9:00:00 AM |
Alaskans better elections |