SB 92-U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION COMPACT  2:15:16 PM CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 92. 2:15:37 PM SENATOR DAVIS, sponsor of SB 92, said her intern would present the bill. QUINN KENDALL, Intern to Senator Davis, read the following sponsor statement for SB 92 into the record: Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, electoral votes, which are based on the number of U.S. representatives and U.S. senators in each state, would be awarded to the national winner, not the state winner. The U.S. Constitution gives the states exclusive and plenary control over the matter of awarding their electoral votes. The winner-take-all rule is not in the Constitution. The fact that Maine and Nebraska award electoral votes by congressional district, is a reminder that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not required to change the way the president is elected. As of January 2010, this interstate compact has been joined by Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, and Washington. Their 61 electoral votes amount to 23 percent of the 270 votes needed for the compact to take effect. The bill has also passed in one or both houses in many states and has continued to gain support nationally. Because of the current winner-take-all rule, a candidate can, and has won the presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 56 presidential elections (and 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 nationwide lead of 3.5 million votes. Another shortcoming of the winner-take-all rule is that presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise or organize in states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign visits and ad money in just six closely divided "battleground" states. A total of 98 percent went to just 15 states. In other words, voters in two- thirds of the states were essentially spectators to the election. 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 Washington D.C. The bill would take effect only when enacted by possessing a majority of the electoral votes - that is, enough electoral votes to elect a president (270 of 538). 2:19:14 PM MR. KENDALL said that enacting the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will increase political efficacy and civic engagement in Alaska and throughout the U.S. CHAIR FRENCH posed a hypothetical situation to show that if just 270 electoral votes were committed to the National Popular Vote system, a candidate could receive a clear electoral majority despite the fact that within the states that opted for NPV there was an overwhelming majority for the other candidate. Some folks are likely to comment on this possibility, he said. 2:22:28 PM TRENT ENGLAND, Director, Save our States (SOS) Project, Washington State, said SOS is dedicated to protecting the institutions of federalism, one of which is the Electoral College. He relayed that he often analogizes the Electoral College to the keel on a sailboat. A self-appointed nautical reformer may decide that the boat would function very well without a keel. That would only happen until the wind blows, he said. The Electoral College does two important things; it has a nationalizing and unifying affect on politics and it has a moderating affect. MR. ENGLAND pointed out that all credible candidates and political parties start campaigning in the states where they have significant support and later focus on the swing states. NPV considers this a problem, but the reality is that swing states draw politics in toward the center for a unifying affect. Grover Cleveland learned about the moderating affect of the Electoral College in 1888 when he won the most votes nationwide and lost the presidency. The NPV would claim he became a poster child for how terrible the Electoral College is, but the 1884 vote was based on intense regional popularity rather than having a broad national coalition. In the four years that Mr. Cleveland was out of the presidency he rebuilt the democratic coalition and then recaptured the presidency in 1892, winning both the national popular vote and the electoral vote. If the national popular vote system had been in existence at the time, the Democratic Party might never again have become a national party or the civil rights coalition that it did. That is all owed to the Electoral College process, he stated. 2:29:47 PM JOHN KOZA, Chair, National Popular Vote, point out that voters in two-thirds of the states are totally ignored by presidential candidates. Candidates spend 98 percent of their time and money in just 15 states. States like Alaska are simply ignored when presidential candidates or a sitting president considers issues, he said. 2:30:43 PM ROBERT M. HARDAWAY, Professor of Law, University of Denver, Sturm College of Law, said he is the author of "The Electoral College and the Constitution: The Case for Preserving Federalism." He said his comments would center on the particular problems with "Koza scheme" and whether or not it's a good idea to do away with the Electoral College. He asked the following questions: about what would 1. What would happen under the "Koza scheme" if a recount was required, but just a handful of states engaged in the recount? 2. Who would decide what the national popular vote is and what would happen if a national official and a state officer disagreed on the vote tally? 3. Would Alaska be bound to accept the popular vote tallies from states whose voting standards violate Alaska public policy? 4. Which state officer would be empowered to overrule the will the voters of Alaska and instead allocate votes to the other candidate? 5. What would happen if some states decided to withdraw from the [NPV]? 6. What provision is there in the "Koza scheme" for a runoff election? 7. If "Koza scheme" supporters want to undermine federalism, wouldn't the first step be to abolish the U.S. Senate since it is the more violative of the "one man one vote" principle? 8. Would the Koza supporters claim that the British system was undemocratic? MR. HARDAWAY cited the final committee vote in the Colorado Legislature and noted that once these problems were pointed out, Colorado did not adopt the National Popular Vote system. He further pointed out that national recounts would be particularly problematic because all 50 states would have to participate. "Multiply the problems we had in Florida by 50 times," he said. Minorities have testified against NPV because it dilutes their voting power, particularly in swing states. MR. HARDAWAY concluded that the most essential feature of the Electoral College is that it requires broad-based support. 2:37:34 PM JAMES GILLES, representing himself, Bird Creek, said he believes that the National Popular Vote is a good way to go. It's a system that would finally help Alaska. 2:38:39 PM JOSEPH F. ZIMMERMAN, Professor of Science, Rockefeller College, State University of New York at Albany, relayed that when the Electoral College was established, the assumption was that the electives in each state would vote for the best candidate, but that's not the way it has worked. This is a nation of majority rule yet voters are not allowed to vote directly for presidential and vice-presidential electives. Furthermore, major candidates only campaign actively in the so-called swing states. These are democratic deficits. Former U.S. Justice Felix Frankfurter and James Landis wrote that the U.S. Constitution encourages creativeness "to devise a variety of legal alternatives to cope with the diverse forms on interstate interests." The National Popular Vote proposal is a creative way to ensure that this nation has majority rule when it comes to the selection of the president and vice president of the United States, he stated. MR. ZIMMERMAN noted that he is the author of about 40 books, many on federalism and several on interstate compacts. 2:42:21 PM DEBBIE JOSLIN, President, Eagle Forum Alaska, Delta Junction, said that as a patriotic Alaska she opposes SB 92 because it would make the state irrelevant in the election of the president and vice president. She recognizes that Alaska has just three electoral votes, but they have far greater influence than they would under the National Popular Vote system. 2:44:30 PM BARRY F. FADEM, President, National Popular Vote, said he enjoys going state to state having discourse on this issue, but he finds it somewhat offensive for Professor Hardaway to refer to this proposal as the "Koza scheme." He noted that some people have been working on this project for up to four years. Also, the book he co-authored on the subject has forwards by three former congressmen and a former senator so he would hope that it would rise above the level of a scheme. He further noted that the book deals with much of the misinformation that is circulating about the NPV proposal. CHAIR FRENCH asked him to address the question of whether or not a national recount might be necessary. MR. FADEM said that under the NPV system recounts would be far less likely than under the current system. It's the current system that causes the crises that result when there's a very close count in just one state as in Florida in 2004. He noted that in the last 56 presidential elections, just five were close enough that legal challenges were brought. He reported that the Washington D.C. based organization called Fair Vote studied 7,645 statewide elections and found that the probability of a recount was one every 332 elections. Using those statistics, the chances of a recount occurring under NPV would be once every 1,328 years. But what's more important, he said, is that under the current system there are literally 51 separate elections each time there's a national election. 2:49:00 PM CHAIR FRENCH asked him to respond to the argument that changing to the NPV system would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. MR. FADEM replied the founding Fathers gave state legislatures the right to determine how to award electoral votes so it's a state's rights issue. If a state feels that the president should be elected by the NPV, it has the right to do that. He noted that 70 percent of the 800 some voters polled in Alaska said they favored the National Popular Vote. He opined that it's a landslide if 70 percent of voters agree on anything today. 2:51:22 PM SENATOR COGHILL asked him to read the poll question. MR. FADEM said the question asked, "How do you think we should elect the president? Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states or the current Electoral College system?" CHAIR FRENCH commented that he almost asked each witness if they believe that the candidate with the most votes should be elected, but it seems rather unfair because who would oppose that. SENATOR COGHILL remarked that he thinks people might have a different response if they understand that the majority vote of the nation might take their state's votes. CHAIR FRENCH said he doesn't disagree. MR. FADEM said that a recent focus group asked if whoever gets the most votes in all 50 states should become president. The answer was, "Well, duh; it's the American way, it's the democratic system." 2:53:39 PM CHAIR FRENCH asked how many different state compacts there are since the issue is whether or not this can be done by state compact. MR. FADEM replied there are literally thousands; it's a very common vehicle for states to use when they agree upon something. He knows that every state is in at least one compact with all 50 states. The issues include environmental, juvenile justice, education, and child support. MR. FADEM concluded saying the states that have very few electoral votes are the poster child for how bad the current system is; that's why Hawaii was one of the first states to join the compact. They understood that, just like Alaska, their votes as a non-battleground state do not count. 2:55:48 PM TARA ROSS, representing herself, said she is the author of "Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College." The NPV proposal asks states like Alaska to give their electors to the winner of the national popular vote rather than the winner on their own state's vote. This plan would practically eliminate the Electoral College, which would do more harm than is generally appreciated. She noted that she outlined her reasoning in written testimony she submitted. MS. ROSS expressed the view that eliminating the Electoral College by implementing SB 92 carries special logistical dangers. She supports the Electoral College but if it is to be eliminated it should be done through the constitutional amendment process. The compact contemplated by SB 92 would require participating states to award their electors to the candidate winning the largest National Popular Vote total. Under this scheme, Alaska could be forced to commit its electors to a candidate who was not on the ballot. There are other inconsistencies among states ballots that could skew election results. For example, some states allow felons to vote, whereas Alaska does not. Inevitably Alaska would have to abide by national election results derived from policies with which it does not agree. MS. ROSS said it's a big assumption that recounts wouldn't happen under the popular vote scheme as has been claimed. If there were recounts, huge problems would result because of the differences in state recounting statutes. Voters would inevitably be disenfranchised and there would be chaos and litigation each and every election year. She said she focused on the logistical problems because they aren't given enough attention, but the proposal has philosophical problems as well. She believes that formally eliminating the Electoral College in any manner would be unhealthy for the country. 3:00:46 PM SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if under the current system a candidate could win with just 15 percent of the nationwide vote. MS. ROSS replied she doesn't see how that could happen because of the current, strong two-party system, which forces political parties and candidates to compromise. She noted that a professor once said that nobody gets their first-choice candidate, but lots of people get their second choice because presidential candidates have to build concurrent majorities to win. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said it's also the case that under the current system a candidate who is not on the ballot in Alaska could win. MS. ROSS disagreed; the case today is that Alaska's three electorates will cast their votes for whomever qualifies for the ballot. CHAIR FRENCH announced he would hold SB 92 for a future hearing.