HOUSE BILL NO. 141 An Act providing for preferential voting in state and local elections. Work draft #1-LS0669\S, Kurtz, 4/19/99 was adopted on 4/20/99. Co-Chair Therriault provided members with Amendment 1(copy on file). MIKE TIBBLES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT explained Amendment 1. Amendment 1 would insert on line 8, page 2 one" and delete "candidates" and insert "one candidate for each office." The amendment clarifies that only one write in candidate per election can be marked as a preference. Current law only allows for one write in candidate. The amendment allows one write in candidate to be included in the voter's preference. Representative J. Davies stated that the sentence is confusing. Co-Chair Therriault clarified that his motion would be conceptual and that the drafter could further clarify the language. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2 (copy on file.) Mr. Tibbles explained that the amendment came as a request from the sponsor Representative Kott. Amendment 2 would delete "first choice" on page 3, line 3. He explained that the language "first choice" would cause problems on the second and subsequent round of tabulation. GAIL FENUMIAI, ELECTION PROGRAM SPECIALIST, DIVISION OF ELECTION, OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR provided information on HB 141. She clarified that after the first round elimination the next candidate that intention would be that the next candidate to be eliminated would be the candidate with the fewest votes, not the first choice least votes. She explained that after the first round, the candidate with the fewest first choice votes would have their second choice votes redistributed to the other candidates. If no candidate receives a majority then the candidate, in the remaining pool, that has the least number of votes would be eliminated and their second choice votes would be redistributed. Co-Chair Therriault questioned if the language would be clarified by the addition of "that tabulation". Ms. Fenumiai responded that "accumulative" could be added. Representative J. Davies summarized that the second choice becomes a first choice. Ms. Fenumiai observed that if there were five candidates and candidate number five had the least first choice votes then they would be eliminated and their second choice votes would be redistributed to candidates two, three and four. The candidate with the least remaining votes of these candidates would next be eliminated and their votes redistributed. Representative J. Davies recommended the addition of "retabulated" or some other modifier. KELLY SULLIVAN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KOTT provided information on behalf of the sponsor. She noted that the sponsor supports the deletion of "first choice" on the advice of the Division. Representative J. Davies MOVED to AMEND Amendment 2 by adding, "retabulated" before "first choice". "First choice" would remain in the legislation. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 2 was adopted as amended. The new language read: "If no candidate receives a majority of the retabulated votes, then the remaining candidate with the fewest retabulated first choice votes shall be declared defeated." Representative J. Davies provided members with Amendment 3 (copy on file). Amendment 3 would add "for the offices of President and Vice-President of the United States." He noted that an Electoral College is used in the primary elections for President and Vice-President of the United States. Ms. Sullivan explained that the language was added to clarify that the preferential vote would be used for all elections. Representative J. Davies maintained that the system for selecting the President and Vice-President should be a nationally consistent process. Representative G. Davis pointed out that the legislation pertains to the popular vote not the Electoral College. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Davies, Grussendorf, Williams OPPOSED: G. Davis, Austerman, Bunde, Mulder, Therriault Representatives Foster, Kohring, and Moses were absent from the vote. The MOTION FAILED (3-5). Mr. Tibbles reviewed the fiscal note. He noted that the cost for the election is every other year and is not needed in the first year. The fiscal note reflects $175 thousand dollars for software redesign. Ms. Fenuumiai responded that the fiscal note is inadequate to allow the Division to implement the legislation effectively. She added that the estimation for the software redesign was based on the first draft of the legislation, which did not contain the complex primary accounting mechanism. She did not think that the funding would be sufficient to get the programming enhanced. The remaining reduced amounts in subsequent years are not adequate. (Tape Change, HFC 99 - 139, Side 2) Representative J. Davies questioned why second choice votes are not counted. Co-Chair Therriault stressed that there would be no reason to switch to a person's second choice while their first choice is in the running. Representative J. Davies expressed further concerns with the legislation. He emphasized that it is difficult to anticipate the consequences of the system. He recommended that the legislation be held and discussed over the interim. He expressed concern that a person could get elected that had fewer first choice votes than another candidate did. He maintained that the issue is the number of registered voters that do not vote. Representative Austerman felt that the legislation should be in the form of a resolution. He emphasized that there should be a vote of the people. Representative Grussendorf spoke against moving the legislation. He pointed out that no other state has implemented the system for their elected officials. The system is only being used by the New York School Board, which is trying "to get out from under it." Representative Williams noted that the Division of Elections' fiscal note was reduced from $1.8 million dollars to $175 thousand dollars. Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that approximately $1 million dollars was included in the Division's fiscal note for new Accu-Vote machines for every voting location. The House Finance Committee fiscal note does not fund this request. Representative Williams noted the need to reduce additional spending. Co-Chair Mulder recommended that the legislation be held for further view. Representative G. Davis asked for more information regarding software needs. Ms. Fenumiai clarified that the current system that is responsible for tabulating ballots cannot accommodate the preferential voting system without substantial modification. HB 141 was heard and HELD in Committee for further consideration.