SENATE BILL NO. 92 "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." 1:39:36 PM Co-Chair Stedman introduced SB 92. QUINN KENDALL, STAFF, SENATOR BETTYE DAVIS, discussed the legislation. The U.S. Constitution gives each state exclusive control over the manner of awarding each state's electoral votes. The current winner-take-all rule practiced by 48 states is not in the constitution. The fact that Maine and Nebraska award electoral votes by Congressional district, is a reminder that electing a president is a state's right issue, and does not require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact bill, all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes - that is 270 of 538, enough electoral votes to elect a President. During previous hearings the question has been raised "Will a National Popular Vote be good for small populated states like Alaska?" The answer to this question is emphatically 'yes,' it would be tremendous for a state like Alaska. And with your indulgence, I'll briefly explain why. Our relevance as a state in electing the President is governed solely by whether we are "winnable" or "not" to a candidate. In other words, are we a "battleground" state, like Iowa, Florida, Ohio and New Hampshire? In those states, the vote for President, are very close, and therefore candidates' allot copious amounts of campaign resources to win those states. In Alaska there are no similar efforts taken by candidates because we are not a closely contested state. In fact, Alaska has not been visited by a presidential candidate since Kennedy and Nixon arrived over 50 years ago. Additional evidence supports the need for SB 92s passage. In past elections candidates have won the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 56 presidential elections (or, 1 in 7 of the non- landslide elections). In 2004, a shift of fewer than 60,000 votes in Ohio would have defeated President Bush despite his substantial nationwide lead of 3 ½ million votes. In conclusion, SB 92s sole purpose is to ensure that a small populated state like ours would have hundreds of thousands of votes that are Winnable, Important, and Valuable to a presidential candidate. And ultimately, whether its campaign spending in Alaska, or attention being paid to our important states issues, the National Popular Vote system is undeniably better for Alaska. 1:43:44 PM Senator Olson asked about the effect this legislation has on minority groups throughout the nation. Mr. Kendall responded that with this bill, each and every vote counts. Senator Huggins asked if the function of the legislation is to eliminate the Electoral College. Mr. Kendall answered no. Senator Huggins asked what the function of the Electoral College would be under this legislation. Mr. Kendall responded that with the Electoral College, each state is designated a certain number of electoral votes. Each state sends their electoral votes to the winner of the most votes nationwide. Senator Huggins suggested that if the total vote count has been tallied, then the Electoral College would exist as a formality. Mr. Kendall agreed that the Electoral College would be a formality. 1:46:18 PM Senator Thomas struggled with the distinction this formula provides when compared to the current method. Senator Olson understood that a pool of states is joined by the compact. He concluded that if Alaska joins the compact, then electoral votes are added to the pool of compacted states. Co-Chair Stedman asked for an explanation of the compact along with a list of states included. He asked about marginalization for Alaska. Mr. Kendall responded that the compact cannot be enacted until 270 electoral votes are met. Currently there are five states enacting similar legislation: Hawaii, Washington, Maryland, New Jersey, and Illinois. Many people wonder how this bill will affect Alaska as electoral votes were originally designed to represent states with small populations. He noted that Wyoming, which is also a small state, has three and one half times more power in their Electoral College vote compared to their population. Florida is inundated with campaign visits because they are a battleground state. He opined that the Electoral College is not working for Alaska therefore Presidential Candidates do not care about campaigning here. 1:50:46 PM Senator Huggins estimated that the "best guarantee Alaska has to get a Presidential candidate to visit is to have a Presidential candidate." CAM CARLSON, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), testified in opposition to the legislation. She opined that the United States does not have a basic democracy, but instead a representative republic. She stressed that the legislation eliminates one of the country's basic forms of government. RANDY GRIFFIN, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), testified in opposition to SB 92. He explained that he likes the Electoral College system because it accentuates state boundaries and rights. He opined that state liberties were at risk and the federal government has taken too much power. The electoral system does benefit small states because we get three electors to match the congressional delegation, which he opined was generous in comparison to the population. 1:56:24 PM RALPH STEVENSON, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in support of SB 92. He stressed the need for legislation that allows each person's vote to count. The national popular vote ensures that each individual's voice is heard in a federal Presidential election. He believed that the bill is right for Alaska and the compact is right for our country. TRENT ENGLAND, SAVE OUR STATE PROJECT, WASHINGTON (via teleconference), testified in favor of the legislation. He noted that the issue reaches far beyond the boundaries of each state. He opined that presidential elections recalibrate politics every four years. He discussed the interstate compact, which he deemed extremely fragile because it is not a change to the constitution. TARA ROSS, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in opposition to the legislation. She stated that a nationwide discussion regarding the elimination of the Electoral College is necessary. Alaska could be forced to award its entire slate of electors to a candidate who is not on the ballot. She cited further inconsistencies that might skew election results. 2:03:15 PM JIM GILLEF, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in support of the legislation. He believed that the bill allows the majority to rule and pulls the states together increasing state's rights. STEPHAN PETERSON, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in support of SB 92. He stated that the constitution is an evolving and living document. He stressed that it is time for every citizen to be counted. 2:05:29 PM DEBBIE JOSLIN, EAGLE FORUM ALASKA, DELTA JUNCTION (via teleconference), testified in opposition to the legislation. She opined that SB 92 would eliminate rights for Alaskans to have a meaningful part in the election of the President. Alaska's electors are pledged to vote for the person who wins the national popular vote. ROB CARLSON, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), testified in opposition of the legislation. He noted that the bill would undermine Alaska's three electoral votes. 2:09:17 PM AT EASE 2:09:37 PM RECONVENE BARRY FADEM, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE, testified in support of the legislation. He discussed the minority issue. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) supports the national popular vote proposal because African Americans in battleground states represented 72 percent in 1976, which fell to 34 percent for the last election. Hispanic groups face the same dilemma. Issues for states without proper representation due to their size are never discussed during presidential campaigns. Six of the states are red and six are blue. He believed that a vote cast in Juneau should be as important as a vote cast in Miami, Florida. The size of the state is irrelevant. Whether or not it is a battleground state is the determining factor. He spoke to the argument that the legislation eliminates the Electoral College. He stated that the allegations were false. He believed that the Electoral College is a rubberstamp for the vote in each of the fifty states. The founding fathers decided in their immanent wisdom to give state legislatures the power to decide how to award the electoral votes. Under the legislation's proposal, state action determines the method of the election process. All reform regarding Presidential elections begins at the state level. 2:13:52 PM REX GOOLSBY, SELF, TOK (via teleconference), testified in opposition of the legislation. The compromise of creating the Electoral College was for the protection of small states. He opined that the passage of the proposal would benefit the states with large population centers. 2:19:23 PM Co-Chair Stedman mentioned one zero fiscal note. Mr. Kendall thanked the committee for the opportunity to testify on behalf of SB 92. He stated that the goal of the legislation was to benefit the entire country. SB 92 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further consideration.