HB 175-US PRESIDENT ELECT. COMPACT: POPULAR VOTE  3:11:24 PM CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 175, "An Act ratifying an interstate compact to elect the President and Vice-President of the United States by national popular vote; and making related changes to statutes applicable to the selection by voters of electors for candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States and to the duties of those electors." 3:12:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER introduced himself as prime sponsor of HB 175, the U.S. Presidential Election Compact, commonly referred to as the "National Popular Vote." 3:12:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER advised that the purpose of the bill is to get to the core value of "What does a vote mean?" He described voting as a sacred right that many women and men struggled to gain and fought hard and gave their lives to defend this right, of which is held in the highest regard in this country. With that highest regard, he said, most important is that every vote is equal. Although, he noted, that right has not always been held in that regard, but the nation is moving more and more to the point where it wants that to be the case. He reminded the committee that laws had been modified to allow minorities and women the right to vote and, he described this as just another step on that journey to make certain every person's vote counts exactly the same. REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER pointed out that the current electoral college system favors swing states that are, essentially, 12 states that determine who is elected as the President of the United States. Within that system, he commented, predominant attention for the race for president is given to those 12 states, involving not only money, but attention to each state's desires and issues. This bill, he pointed out, is "very, very, much" meant to start a discussion as to that system, and related that it is the belief of the compact organizers that every vote should count equally toward determining who would be the President of the United States, whether in Ohio or Alaska. This bill ratifies a compact intended to grant the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes, rather than counting vote's state-by-state. It is important to note, he said, that currently it takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency, and this [compact takes effect when enough states pass this compact with their electoral votes totaling 270.] He explained that the states that sign on at that time will then, rather than voting necessarily for how just the people in their state vote, will vote how the national popular vote goes. Currently, 10 states and the District of Columbia have ratified this compact representing a total of 165 electoral votes, 15 states have passed the compact through one legislative body and, he stressed that it is time for Alaska to start thinking about this compact, which is why it was brought forward. 3:16:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER offered that a key issue important to this vote is that Alaska, currently, holds a large seat at the table when it comes to the nation. By far, he described, Alaska is the greatest resource development state in the nation, it is the reason the United States is considered an Arctic Nation, it has 36 percent of all federal lands, and 40 percent of all federally recognized tribes. Yet, rarely are those facts brought up in a presidential election because to win the presidency, the candidates need to cater to the 12 swing states. By ratifying the National Popular Vote, Alaska can get on the record with Alaskan values as part of that national picture. He advised he believes in this compact because it increases Alaska's count around the nation and, hopefully during the next presidential election, candidates will speak to Alaska's issues, such as, resource development, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), climate change affecting its villages, and stressing the importance of Alaska's federally recognized tribes moving forward. This compact stresses the importance to each candidate to speak to Alaskan issues in order to win every vote cast in this state, he pointed out. 3:18:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that she is not thrilled with the electoral college system, but she has real problems with this bill. She surmised that a significant portion of Alaska's population could vote for one candidate, and because the states of California and New York vote for another candidate, the votes of Alaska would be for the candidate of New York and California who received the most votes. She ask Representative Fansler, why he doesn't change the system according to what the framers anticipated and offer an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the current system. 3:20:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER, in response to Representative LeDoux's point regarding Alaska voting one way and the electoral votes another way, countered that Alaska has statewide elections for governor and federal senators and representatives. Alaska law reads that every vote in Alaska counts and it does not partition off votes district-by-district wherein a gubernatorial candidate must win 21 out of the 40 house districts in order to be elected governor. The office the country elects as a nation is the Office of the President of the United States, and this bill is saying to take the same idea Alaska uses to elect its governor and spread that out to the entire nation, he explained. REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER responded to Representative LeDoux's point regarding an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and countered that to change and amend the constitution is an "extremely monumental task." Quite honestly, he stated, the nation has not had an amendment for quite some time, let alone an attempt to amend the constitution since the 1970s. This bill, he pointed out, allows a mechanism in which to obtain the desired goal of a national popular vote, and at the same time offers security because Alaska could "pull out if we wanted to," he related. Representative Fansler offered a hypothetical situation in which Alaska decided to enact this compact and move forward, Alaska could then drop out before, or after, the compact was ever initiated if the people of Alaska decided this was not what they wanted, "or if we put in together a place where we say the electoral college is something that, in the old form, was much more beneficial to us." This compact provides an additional safety net in which to make decisions, he expressed. Furthermore, in the event the Constitution of the United States was amended and abolished the electoral college system, it would be just as difficult to turn around and re-amend it to add the system back in, such as prohibition, he explained. 3:23:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noted that Representative Fansler was an eloquent speaker, but she still wasn't convinced. As to prohibition, she remarked, at one point people were fed up enough with what they perceived as alcohol abuse to abolish the use of liquor in this country and passed the amendment. Except, she offered, prohibition turned out to not exactly work in the manner people desired, so the amendment was repealed. She noted her belief that the constitution is a document that should not be easy to amend, and asked whether there had been a real movement to amend the constitution to abolish the current system. 3:24:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER commented that the electoral college had been in dispute and debated since its inception, and its history was brought up regarding the powers of large states versus small states, and with regard to the Founding Fathers possibly not trusting the wellbeing of the general populous to directly elect, and the electoral college came about as a means of compromise between the states as they were coming together. Since that time, there have been constant debates as to whether it should or should not be there, with movements to change the constitution, and the prevailing thought appears to be whether to maintain the status quo, or to try the National Popular Vote and the flexibility of this compact, he offered. CHAIR CLAMAN noted that the bill would not move today. 3:26:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to the statement that the 12 battleground states often determine the outcome of the election with all of the focus on those states, and commented that by going to a popular vote, the battlegrounds would be reduced to 11 states to get to the 270 electoral votes. The population centers would then become the real focus and Alaska would be even further left out. He offered that Representative Fansler made a good argument against National Popular Vote when he pointed out some of the unique features of Alaska that only the people living here can appreciate with its diversity of interests and, he commented, which is probably why direct peer democracy up to the governor level is ideal. He stated that Alaskans would never trust someone outside of Alaska to see things in the same manner as Alaskans, and noted there are issues many democrats, republicans, and independents in Alaska agree on simply by virtue of living here and overreaching policies are rarely fought. He commented that in getting away from the current representative republic to a direct peer democracy, this state would lose because, while it never comes down to the state's two electoral votes, it probably would never come down to the last Alaskan vote. He expressed fear that the population centers, being 11 states, would become the focus of all of the money garnered in Alaska's campaign funding, and Alaska would be further irrelevant and more left out. 3:28:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE FANSLER briefly answered that to be quite honest, no one knows how this would change elections, but elections would change because suddenly, every vote was in play, and which ever candidate cobbled together 50.00001 percent of the votes would win the presidency. Possibly, he said, a candidate would go straight to these major cities, but possibly they would actually start to speak directly to the issues of the states, realizing that in order to win the 700,000 votes in Alaska, they must speak to Alaska's issues and set up campaign headquarters throughout the state, not just in Anchorage. Alaska typically trends red, and California typically trends blue, and by typically, he offered, he meant massively. Therefore, a red voter in California may think it doesn't matter whether they vote because the democrat will win, whereas under the National Popular Vote, suddenly the typical color of a state doesn't matter because every vote is important. Hopefully, he commented, one of the nice byproducts of this [compact] is that it will also drive up voter turnout, which everyone wants. 3:31:19 PM BARRY FADEM, President, National Popular Vote, advised that he has been the president of National Popular Vote since its inception in 2005. He said he would quickly run through the five benefits that accrue to Alaska if the National Popular Vote passes. Under the National Popular Vote, the most dramatic change for Alaskans is that every vote cast in Alaska counts just as much as a vote cast around the country. An Alaskan voter will know on election night when the news shows are running the totals, their vote was including in the totals. There will be a presidential campaign in all 50 states and under the National Popular Vote, every vote in every state is equal. He related that the organization could not guarantee that presidential candidates or their surrogates would come to Alaska, but there would be specific television and radio ads on issues important to that state. In 2016, 94 percent of the campaign visits were in 12 states. For the first time in Alaska's history, he stressed, the state would actually be participating in the presidential election and discussing issues important to Alaska. 3:33:25 PM MR. FADEM remarked that currently both national parties pump millions of dollars into the 12 battleground states for grassroots activities. Under the National Popular Vote in a 50 state campaign, it is expected that the national parties will spread that money out and build a grassroots structure in all 50 states because every four years all 50 states would be battleground states under the National Popular Vote. In 2012, $2.1 million was raised by both parties in the State of Alaska, and every cent of that money exported out to the 12 battleground states. Under the National Popular Vote the money raised in Alaska by both parties could actually stay in Alaska. As to an emotional benefit, he said he guaranteed that no voter in Alaska would ever go to the voting booth with the presidential election already being decided. During the last 20 years, most of the elections have been called by the media long before the polls closed in California or Alaska, and under the National Popular Vote, no winner would be declared until all of the votes in all 50 states had been counted. Thereby, allowing Alaskans to go to the voting booth and the President of the United States had not yet been determined. 3:34:52 PM MR. FADEM noted that last year, two books were published and documented that battleground states do better [during the term of the president] than non-battleground states because [they receive] 7 percent more in presidential controlled grants, and twice as much in disaster relief. He pointed out that it is difficult to attract the attention of the White House when standing in line behind the 12 battleground states that will receive the primary attention of the president, for the next four years. The only reason for this bill today is that the Founding Fathers gave citizens the exclusive right to make this decision, and referred to the Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 1, and he paraphrased that it gave citizens the exclusive right to make that decision. He reminded the committee that the decision to make is, what system of awarding Alaska's electoral votes is in the best interests of Alaska. Now, he commented, contrast the current system wherein Alaska has zero influence in the presidential election versus the attributes he had described under the National Popular Vote. 3:36:12 PM MR. FADUM, in response to Representative Kopp's previous question, answered that Representative Kopp's point about the 11 states was interesting because that point would be true currently, as opposed to the National Popular Vote. When looking at the 11 largest states in the country, if everyone in those 11 states voted for the same candidate, the big states would control today, just as Representative Kopp argued regarding the National Popular Vote, except, he pointed out, that's not the real world. For instance, with regard to the 12 biggest states, he related that in 2004, six were red and six were blue; and in 2016, seven were red and six were blue. Therefore, the 12 biggest states do not guarantee a significant margin for either political party. In 2004, when looking at the 12 largest states, the difference turned out to be 244,657 between Mr. Kerry and President Bush in the 12 biggest states, although, a corollary to that was the big cities. He pointed out that big cities, such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, don't control elections today and they would not control it under the National Popular Vote. The total population of the 50 largest cities in the country is 15 percent of the population of America, and the 50th largest city is Arlington, Texas with a population of 365,000. He suggested looking at the money in terms of campaigning, the average cost per vote was as follows: New York-$5.02; Los Angeles-$5.06; but the 25th largest median market being Indianapolis-$0.04; and the 101th market being Fort Smith, Arkansas-$0.03. Television ads and radio ads cost less in rural areas of the country and in Alaska, and when presidential campaigns calculate the fact that every vote counts in all 50 states, candidates will campaign everywhere. 3:39:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether he understood correctly that the interstate compact that the National Popular Vote requires, would be that each state would pledge its electoral votes to the overall winner regardless of who its citizens voted. Therefore, he related, the candidate running in Alaska is always subservient to whoever wins nationally because the bottom line is that if a state signs on to this, that state's vote is subservient to the national will, and that where the electors are going. MR. FADUM offered that this is an issue of state identity and he would not quite characterize it in the same manner as Representative Kopp. He said, in a national election voters care whether their candidate became the president, and state identity, whether a state voted for their person as President of the United States, is a footnote because voters care whether their person won the presidency. 3:41:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented that Mr. Fadum hit on the 20 mile philosophical divide between them because the role of a state is not a footnote. He argued that the states are the entities in the constitution that elect the president, it is not a peer democracy and "we do care" who we vote for as a state. He remarked that possibly in California it is a footnote, but not in Alaska. 3:42:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that in speaking for the residents of his district, he did not know whether the promise to bring more political ads to television was a winning point, and possibly should not be considered one of the top five points. 3:42:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS, in response to Representative Kopp's comments, noted that there are two predominantly rural states that already do exactly what "you are" describing. In 2016, he pointed out, Bruce Poliquin's Maine Congressional District has a system of allocating electoral votes by congressional district and the overall popular vote winner of that state receives the two "electoral votes that are represented by the senators cast its vote for Donald Trump, whereas the other three electoral votes went for Hillary Clinton." He explained that if someone voted for Hillary Clinton in Maine, that voter saw one of their electors go the other way, allegedly contrary to the will of that state. In 2008, the exact inverse occurred in Lee Terry's Nebraska Congressional District regarding President Obama and Senator McCain, so this system is already happening, he pointed out. There is a logical jump that has to be made, and while he appreciates how it appears, the overall point is that people want a system that will vest and franchise the state in a national political conversation. He remarked that it appears blindingly clear that currently a political conversation is directed to a dozen elite states, which is not in any state's best interests, red or blue. [HB 175 was held over.]