HB 112 - AMEND DEFINITION OF "POLITICAL PARTY" The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs Standing Committee was HB 112, "An Act amending the definition of `political party' except as the definition of the term applies to the regulation of contributions and expenditures in state and municipal election campaigns, an amendment that also has the effect of changing the definition of `political organization' as applied to the regulation of games of chance and contests of skill." CHAIR JAMES called on Representative Al Vezey, sponsor of HB 112, to present the bill. Number 0755 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY explained that HB 112 was an endeavor to change the nature of the general election for statewide offices. Currently, the system included a primary election and then "I would characterize this thing-a lottery-that followed that." There had been candidates elected to statewide offices, most notably to governor, that had received as little as 36 percent of the votes. It had been a long time since anyone received more than 42 percent of the votes. One of the reasons was because current election law encouraged groups of people who wanted to call themselves a political party to run a candidate for governor. "That is our measurement of how we establish a political party for most of Alaska Statutes." House Bill 112 would change that by creating another option to establish a political party. It did not take away the right of people to get together and run a candidate for governor and qualify as a political party, but rather the bill provided an alternative for groups to be recognized as a party. He explained that the figure 10,000 was equivalent to approximately 3 percent of the votes, in the last general election. In addition, the party did not have to run a candidate for governor to retain its qualification, and it was hopeful that if the bill became law as many as three parties would no longer feel a need to throw a candidate into the general election. Number 0934 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked Representative Vezey if this would allow the undeclared or undecided voters to form a political party? Number 0951 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied, "Not declaring a party affiliation under this bill would not classify those people as a member of a political party." However, if they wished to create a party called "undeclared" or "independent" and they got 10,000 registered voters then it would become a political party. There would still be on the voter registration card a category, by default, called "undeclared." Number 1041 JAMES BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, explained that the definition of a "political party" involved substantial litigation in the past, particularly over the 3 percent requirement. He cited the Vogler case where the threshold was reduced from 10 percent to 3 percent. It was possible to add another threshold, but he believed the legislature should create a record to justify the 10,000 registered voter requirement. "It just isn't something that, I think, that can be done arbitrarily and successfully defended." There needed to be a compelling interest on the part of the state to impose such a limitation, and it needed to be the least restrictive. He did not know how the sponsor arrived at the 10,000 figure, but until that was put into a record, there wasn't much to defend. MR. BALDWIN further stated there was the issue of political affiliation disclosure. He cited a federal case, NAACP v. Button where it was found that there was a strong First Amendment right to keep one's political affiliation private. In addition, the largest percentage of the registered voters in Alaska were non-partisan or no-party. He assumed that was because Alaskans did not like to disclose their party affiliation publicly. Therefore, one unintended result would be to require a disclosure of one's party affiliation in order to qualify for the second prong of the proposed definition. MR. BALDWIN further stated, in its current form, the department did not support the bill. Number 1250 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Baldwin if he had any suggestions? If the bill said "registered voters or 3 percent of the last election," for example, what would that do? It still made a person disclose his or her party affiliation. What if a person did not have to do disclose it every time, for example? Number 1280 MR. BALDWIN replied there was a problem tracking political affiliation. Voter registrations were open and available to the public. They were a valuable tool to the political parties and to campaigns. "One option that could be considered would be some limited way of making this information confidential perhaps to the administration that's making that determination as to whether or not they met the basic threshold." Consequently, the political parties would not have access to the information that they valued. Number 1358 GAIL FENUMIAI, Election Coordinator, Central Office, Division of Elections, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, stated the division believed that this new definition of a political party would be an additional expense and be administratively burdensome. Presently, the division tracked party affiliation of only the recognized parties. She cited: Democrat, Republican, Alaskan Independence, Green, Undeclared, Non-Partisan, and Other. The voter registration system was not set up to handle a wide variety of other political party affiliations that somebody could put down if they checked the "other" category. At present, they were all lumped together into this category. She reiterated this bill would cause some problems for the division. Number 1429 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Ms. Fenumiai if she saw any advantages of the bill if the logistics were in place? Number 1438 MS. FENUMIAI replied she could not see any other advantage other than creating another avenue for a group of people to become a political party. Number 1458 KEN JACOBUS, Legal Counsel, Republican Party of Alaska, was the first person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. He supported HB 112. He called it a good idea and it should be passed. A small political party should not have to undertake the expensive gubernatorial campaign each election to retain its status. He agreed with Mr. James Baldwin that a legislative record was needed. MR. JACOBUS further stated that the parties would oppose any confidentiality of the records. He referred the committee members to a memorandum dated January 29, 1997, from Mr. Jack chenoweth, Legislative Counsel, and stated consideration should be given to making a uniform definition of a "political party" throughout the Alaska Statutes. There were two definitions now, and if the bill was enacted there would be three. Moreover, the Republican Party of Alaska had a problem with the issue of defining a political party for the purpose of campaign financing. The legislature should consider input from all of the political parties to ensure that the parties did not have any problems. Number 1571 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Jacobus if he would comment on the issue of the constitutionality of the bill addressed earlier by Mr. James Baldwin? Number 1580 MR. JACOBUS replied the NAACP v. Button case dealt with disclosure of the membership records of the NAACP which was a different issue. "I don't think you're really going to run into a problem because a political party will have two ways now in order to exercise its right to political affiliation." He cited the 3 percent route and the 10,000 route. The 10,000 route was a free choice because registered voters needed to be obtained. "I don't see that it's a big problem, myself." Number 1648 CHAIR JAMES called for a motion to move the bill out of the committee. Number 1650 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON moved that HB 112 move from the committee with the attached fiscal note(s) and individual recommendations. There was no objection, HB 112 was so moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.