HB 112 AMEND DEFINITION OF "POLITICAL PARTY" REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY testified on behalf of the bill. Testimony was heard via teleconference from DONNA GILBERT, ROYCE CHAPMAN, MIKE PRAX, KEN JACOBUS, DIANA BUFFINGTON and JAMES BALDWIN. SENATOR ADAMS MOVED Amendment #1. COCHAIR SHARP objected. Amendment #1 FAILED by a 1 to 5 vote. SENATOR PHILLIPS MOVED CSHB 112(FIN) from committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. SENATOR ADAMS objected. The MOTION CARRIED by a 5 to 1 vote and CSHB 112(FIN) was REPORTED OUT with a previous zero fiscal note from the Department of Revenue and a fiscal note from the Division of Elections (59.6). HB 112 AMEND DEFINITION OF "POLITICAL PARTY" REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY testified on behalf of the bill. He explained that the bill addressed the fact that since 1970 the state had not elected a governor by majority vote. The legislation would encourage that possibility by providing additional means for a group of political active people to qualify as a party. It did not reduce anything in current statute but added to it as a supplemental way to qualify by providing that a party with a certain number of registered voters would not have to run a candidate but could still maintain its party status. SENATOR ADAMS asked about the three percent qualification. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained that a party must have registered voters equal to three percent of the votes cast for governor in the preceding election. In response to a question from SENATOR PHILLIPS, REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained that current law requires a party had to run a candidate and the candidate had to receive three percent of the vote. HB 112 would change it so that it would allow party status to vest based on registered voters. The following testimony was heard via teleconference: Fairbanks: DONNA GILBERT testified in support of the bill. She believed it was important, noting that governors had been elected with as little as 38.9 percent of the vote, which didn't allow for the majority to be represented. She supported giving political parties a choice as to whether or not they wanted to run a candidate in a statewide election. She described the services provided by political parties and described the effect of the bill. ROYCE CHAPMAN spoke in support of HB 112. He believed it would go a long way in helping every Alaskan to take part in the political process. He did not believe it would limit new or small parties. They would not be required to concentrate on raising large sums of money just to be listed on the ballot of a statewide race. MIKE PRAX also supported the legislation. It not only offered the opportunity to have the governor elected by a majority, it also gave other philosophical groups the opportunity to be recognized as a political party. Smaller parties provided a valuable service. Anchorage: KEN JACOBUS testified in favor of HB 112 for reasons already stated by others testifying. It made ballot access easier which was important to encourage people to participate in politics. Parties should not be forced to spend a lot of money on a race they cannot win in order to maintain their party status. Kodiak: DIANA BUFFINGTON, District Chair, Republican Party, supported HB 112. She stated it allowed minor political parties to become known and get their views out. It would make it easier to get into the political process. She urged the committee's support. SENATOR ADAMS asked to hear from the Department of Law concerning the legislation. He noted that he would be offering an amendment to page 1, lines 10 and 12 that would delete "preceding" and provide an effective date following the 1998 election. His reasoning was related to fairness to other organizations with regard to changing the law. JAMES BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law, opposed the legislation. He stated that there was a matter that involved the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, that being ballot access and freedom of political association. Courts require that the state show a compelling governmental interest in support of a statute that would affect ballot access. If there were some disparate effect on political parties, there should be some showing that this was the least restrictive means available to establish a goal. He stated there was a disparate treatment of now recognized political parties in the state because of the way the numbers break out for registered party members. The AIP's could sit out the next election while the Greens, if they could not muster additional voters to register their affiliation would not be able to sit out to retain their recognized party status. If the goal was to provide easier ballot access, it seemed to be at variance with the goal of majority vote, because it would mean they would not have a candidate on the ballot. The rationale of easier ballot access did not seem to hold up and he believed there was some other purpose for the legislation. MR. BALDWIN continued by stating that if the idea was to allow new political parties to form, there were other impediments that needed consideration. Campaign finance laws enacted last year had a different definition of political party. It had to meet the three percent rule or be recognized in the last five general elections. A newly registered party would not be able to qualify under those laws. He believed the legislation had "lawsuit written all over it." He respected the sponsor's position but stated there needs to be a much better case presented. He spoke briefly of other alternatives available. In response to a question from COCHAIR SHARP, MR. BALDWIN stated it was much more difficult to get people to register political affiliation than to get them to vote on a confidential ballot. SENATOR DONLEY asked if there had been any written opinion from the attorney general's office regarding the constitutionality of last year's campaign finance reform act. MR. BALDWIN clarified that there was not an issue of constitutionality, but a difference in definition. He restated the qualification for a political party under that act. Brief discussion ensued concerning constitutionality. SENATOR ADAMS MOVED Amendment #1. COCHAIR SHARP objected. SENATOR ADAMS reiterated his position that the amendment provided an opportunity for political associations to put their parties forward to give the people a choice. He believed it was an equal and fair consideration for other political groups, pointing out the legislation only benefited one group. A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to adopt Amendment IN FAVOR: Adams OPPOSED: Phillips, Donley, Torgerson, Parnell, Sharp Amendment #1 FAILED by a 1 to 5 vote. General discussion followed regarding the bill. SENATOR DONLEY and COCHAIR SHARP spoke in support. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY noted a copy of a letter from Richard Winger in members' files that pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld a Louisiana law that required a party to have five percent of registered voters or receive five percent of the vote in an election. He stated HB 112 was well under that threshold. SENATOR ADAMS commented that the bill created limitations on the rights of political associations. He stated that in the next election the AIP would sit out the election while the Green Party would have to put forth a candidate. He believed it was politically motivated and opposed the underlying tone of the legislation. SENATOR PHILLIPS MOVED CSHB 112(FIN) from committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. SENATOR ADAMS objected. A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION. IN FAVOR: Donley, Torgerson, Parnell, Phillips, Sharp OPPOSED: Adams The MOTION CARRIED by a 5 to 1 vote and CSHB 112(FIN) was REPORTED OUT with a previous zero fiscal note from the Department of Revenue and a fiscal note from the Division of Elections (59.6).