SB 92-U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION COMPACT  1:37:45 PM CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 92. The bill was heard previously. 1:38:15 PM GRANT W. HUNTER, representing himself, stated opposition to SB 92 because he can think of no reason that persons who are not entitled to vote in Alaska elections should be allowed to decide how Alaska casts its electoral votes in presidential elections. Furthermore, he said it isn't proper for one legislature to decide how electoral votes shall be used in future elections. In each election this decision should be made by a vote of the people entitled to vote in Alaska elections and subject to the electoral procedures provided by law in this state. MR. HUNTER said he is familiar with the argument that the majority of the people should elect the President, but Article II and Amendment 12 of the U.S. Constitution provide for the electoral votes to make that choice. Since 1860 it's been the practice in all but two states that the popular vote in a given state determines how the electors shall be chosen. Those two states divide their electoral votes by Congressional district and in practice they wouldn't have made a difference, he submitted. MR. HUNTER cited and disputed different arguments for the national popular vote including better representation of minority views and the 2000 presidential election when the national popular vote was not the same as the electoral vote. What it really comes down to, he said, is that the legislature has no business giving away the votes of Alaskans in future elections. It may even violate the Voting Rights Act. He noted that he submitted an email supporting his views. 1:45:27 PM PAT STIDMAN, representing himself, stated support for SB 92. Ours is a transforming democracy that is becoming more available to each and every citizen, and to protect this each individual vote must be counted, he said. There have been times when the will of the people has been overridden because of the Electoral College system, he warned. I urge you to pass this bill and get on with democracy, he concluded. 1:47:39 PM RALPH STEVENSON, representing himself, stated support for SB 92. The national popular vote issue is simple and goes to the core of this nation's foundation. It is one vote for one person. When the country was young, rural areas needed assistance to achieve voting parity with the population centers, but that's no longer the case. The national popular vote will ensure just one thing, and that is that every voter will be important and every vote will be equal. Never would a president be elected who does not reflect the most votes cast by the populous. Finally, he said, in this time of hyper-partisanship, this proposal enjoys a strong spectrum of bipartisan support. "It's only right that Alaska take up this measure," he concluded. 1:49:37 PM JEFF WORTHY, representing himself, stated support for SB 92 and the national popular vote. He opined that the electoral vote and that of the Electoral College should mirror the national vote for president. He thanked the committee for taking the time to look at this issue. CHAIR FRENCH noted that Barry Fadem testified previously but he was available if the committee had questions for him. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked Mr. Fadem his opinion of the concern that some people have that this wouldn't help small states like Alaska. MR. FADEM, President, National Popular Vote, replied Alaska receives no attention in a presidential election because it isn't closely divided; it has nothing to do with the fact that it has just three electoral votes. It's that Alaska and other small electoral states are not closely divided. They are not battleground states. The purpose of the national popular vote proposal is to make a vote in Alaska just as valuable as a vote in a closely divided, battleground state, like New Hampshire and Ohio. He pointed out that the 12 non-battleground small states have a combined voter population of 11.5 million and Ohio has about that same number of voters. These 12 small states have 40 electoral votes among them, whereas Ohio has 20 electoral votes. In the 2008 election Ohio received 62 of 300 election visits while the 12 small states, including Alaska, received just 2 visits. He reiterated that if the national popular vote proposal passes, a vote in Alaska would become just as important as a vote cast in Ohio. CHAIR FRENCH closed public testimony. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to report SB 92 from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). 1:53:33 PM SENATOR COGHILL objected. He said he's tried to stay open, but after a lot of thought he's concluded that this isn't the right thing go do. We should stay focused on the fact that this is a republic and that this proposal would change Alaska to a more populist democratic structure. I prefer to maintain a republic democratic focus, he said. SENATOR COGHILL said he's also looked at the statistical issues and has come to the conclusion that this would diminish Alaska's vote capacity almost by half. "I don't see where we gain and I see where we probably lose more of the Tenth Amendment issues that protect us as a nation of states." He acknowledged that the winner take all issue caused him pause, but even under this compact it would still be the winner take all. It's just that Alaskans would surrender their vote to somebody else. In fact, the Alaska popular vote may be overruled under this proposal. SENATOR COGHILL pointed out that Alaska assign its electoral votes by a popular vote to Alaskans who assign the winner take all. The winner take all on this compact would be no different so we don't gain anything. "I'm going to stick with what I think is probably the best federalist approach and that is a nation of states. We're certainly a nation of people, but even in the Preamble to the Constitution it's 'We the people of the United States'" and I want to keep it that way so I'm going to vote 'No' on this bill," he concluded. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he isn't sure how he'd vote if he had to push the up or down button today but there have been good arguments on both sides, which is healthy for the democracy. He clarified that his motion is to move the bill on to the next committee for further debate. He said he'll give the bill a "No Recommendation" as it leaves the committee, but he firmly believes that moving it on is the best course of action. 1:57:08 PM A roll call vote was taken. The motion to report SB 92 from committee passed on a 3:1 vote with Senator Wielechowski, Senator McGuire and Senator French voting yea and Senator Coghill voting nay. CHAIR FRENCH announced that on a vote of 3:1, SB 92 moves from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.