SB 61-US PRESIDENT ELECT. POPULAR VOTE COMPACT  4:10:17 PM CHAIR KAWASAKI reconvened the meeting and announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 61 "An Act relating to an interstate compact to elect the President and Vice-President of the United States by national popular vote; and relating to the selection of electors for candidates for President and Vice- President of the United States and to the duties of those electors." He noted that this was the first hearing. 4:10:36 PM SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI, District K, sponsor of SB 61, stated that the National Popular Vote Bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all states. He continued to introduce the legislation, speaking to the following sponsor statement: Senate Bill 61 will give every Alaskan voter a meaningful vote in presidential elections by entering the National Popular Vote agreement with other states to guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide. SB 61 would have Alaska join the 15 other states and the District of Columbia that have already joined the agreement. Together these states have 195 electoral votes. Once states totaling a majority of the Electoral College (currently 270 votes) join the agreement, these states will begin to award their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that receives the most votes nationwide. Until this threshold is reached, Alaska will continue to allocate its electoral votes to the winner of the statewide vote. Under the current system presidential candidates do little to campaign for Alaskan votes, and they do not need to develop positions on or even learn about issues unique to Alaska. The last time a major presidential candidate came to Alaska to campaign for general election votes was John F. Kennedy in 1960. It is not only Alaskan voters who are ignored in presidential elections almost all serious campaigning happens in only 12 states. The entire Pacific Coast includes non-competitive states meaning presidential candidates do not have to address concerns that Alaska shares with other West Coast states like Pacific fisheries management. Under the National Popular Vote system, savvy presidential campaigns will fight for every persuadable vote, no matter where they are located, and develop messages addressing the concerns of all regions. The National Popular Vote agreement will not give any political party an advantage. An analysis by well- known statistician Nate Silver found that "there's almost no correlation between which party has the Electoral College advantage in one election and which has it four years later." Passing SB 61 will help ensure that all American votes truly are equal and that Alaskans' concerns must be taken seriously by presidential candidates. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI briefly addressed some misconceptions about the constitutionality of the bill. He quoted the US Constitution that says each state shall appoint its electors based on direction from the legislature. SB 61 does not do away with the Electoral College system. Rather, the state would enter into a contract to change the way Electoral College votes are cast to a system where the winner of the national popular vote gets the Electoral College votes. He said it's also a misconception that the winner take all system of awarding Electoral College is in the US Constitution. Just three states used it in the first presidential election in 1789 and all three repealed that provision by 1800. It was after almost all the founding fathers were deceased that a majority of states adopted the winner takes all system of awarding Electoral College votes. It wasn't until 50 years after that that all states adopted the winner takes all system. The story continues to 1969 when Maine changed to a district system to award its Electoral votes and Nebraska followed suit in 1992. This is a reminder that states have the flexibility to decide how their Electoral College votes will be cast. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI highlighted the following data. Since 2008, 22 states have had no presidential campaign events, 9 states have had one campaign event, and 95 of the 1,164 campaign events occurred in just 14 states. Just 14 states received 98 percent of the general election campaign events in 2008, 12 states received 100 percent of the general election campaign events in 2012, 12 states received 94 percent of the general election campaign events in 2016, and 12 states received 96 percent of the general election campaign events in 2020. The vast majority of political campaign events occur in just a small number of states. In 2012, for example, candidate Obama conducted campaign events in just 8 states after his nomination and candidate Romney conducted campaign events in 10 states after his nomination. Two-thirds of the presidential post-convention campaign events occurred in just 4 states. Only 3 of the 25 smallest states received any attention after the 2012 conventions. SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI disputed the claim that small states are ignored because of their size, pointing out that they're ignored because they're not closely divided politically. He said a vote for president in Wyoming and Alaska is equal to a vote in California and New York. They're all politically irrelevant because the outcomes are clear before the vote is taken. By contrast, SB 61 will force candidates to solicit votes in all the states in the country. 4:16:15 PM SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI stated that it's also a myth that the National Popular Vote will advantage large cities. In fact, large cities don't even control the elections in their state. He listed successful candidates for governor of California going back to Ronald Reagan who lost in Los Angeles but won the race. Importantly, 85 percent of the population of the US live in places that have populations of fewer than 365,000 people. It is in those communities that presidential candidates will be forced to campaign to win the election. CHAIR KAWASAKI asked Mr. Dunsmore to present the sectional analysis. 4:18:19 PM DAVID DUNSMORE, Staff, Senator Bill Wielechowski, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, presented the sectional analysis for SB 61 on behalf of the sponsor. Section 1 is a conforming section that references Section 2. Section 2 establishes that the statute for deciding tied elections does not apply to the presidential electors when the National Popular Vote provisions are in effect. Section 3 is a conforming section that references Section 4. Section 4 establishes that Alaska's ranked choice voting system will be used for calculating the popular vote totals. Section 5 is a conforming section that references Section 6. Section 6 establishes that, when the National Popular Vote provisions are in effect, Alaska's presidential electors shall be awarded the winner of the nationwide popular vote. Section 7 is a conforming section that references Section 8. Section 8 requires that, when the National Popular Vote provisions are in effect, electors shall be required to vote for the presidential and vice- presidential candidates who won the nationwide popular vote. Section 9 enacts the Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote. • New AS 15.30.104 is the language of the Agreement: o Article I states that any state and the District of Columbia may join the agreement. o Article II requires each state to conduct a statewide popular vote election for president and vice president. o Article III adopts procedures for awarding electors to the winner of the nationwide popular vote. o Article IV states that the Agreement takes effect when states representing the majority of the electoral votes have joined the Agreement. It also establishes procedures for states to leave the Agreement. o Article V defines terms used in the Agreement. • New AS 15.30.106 establishes that the director of the Division of Election is considered the "chief election official" for purposes of the Agreement. • New AS 15.30.108 establishes that when the agreement is in effect, it shall take precedence over any conflicting language in statute or regulation. 4:20:53 PM CHAIR KAWASAKI asked if there were other obligations that the state would find difficult to comply with. MR. DUNSMORE said not to his knowledge. The Division of Elections acknowledged the bill would not have a fiscal impact on the state and submitted a zero fiscal note. The state will do basic arithmetic on the certified results from all 50 states and the District of Columbia and award electors to the winner of the popular vote. 4:22:08 PM CHAIR KAWASAKI read a brief biography to introduce Dr. John Koza who was an invited testifier. 4:23:18 PM DR. JOHN KOZA, Chair, National Popular Vote; Author, Every Vote Equal, Los Altos, California, testified by invitation in support of SB 61, which would guarantee the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. He informed the committee of the shortcomings in the current presidential election system. They stem from the winner take all laws that Alaska and 48 other states passed. The states award all electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in the state. The effect of the winner take all laws is that some states are ignored during the presidential election campaign. He stated that a presidential candidate will not visit a state that is united in its party voting record. DR. KOZA explained that presidential campaigns were limited to 12 battleground states comprising approximately 30 percent of the country's population. He pointed out that all of the small states were excluded with the exception of New Hampshire. He added that one congressional district in Maine received campaign attention. He added that nearly all Western States are excluded from campaigning. He noted that most of the heartland, southern, rural, and northeastern states are ignored in the presidential campaign. The exclusion of states remains the largest problem with the current system. DR. KOZA continued that Alaska has two extra electoral votes because of the state's two senators. He countered that the eight smallest states with three electoral votes, like Alaska received one general election campaign visit. He added that Wisconsin received 58 visits over the last four elections. Wisconsin has ten electoral votes. He pointed out that the winner-take-all rule led to election results hinging on a few states. The major problem with the current system is that three out of four states are irrelevant to candidates thinking about getting elected or reelected as president. A related problem is that the current system threatens democracy. Winner takes all laws are the cause of the problem and the reason that a national popular vote would be better. DR. KOZA recapped the sponsor's explanation of the Interstate Compact and agreed that SB 61 does not abolish the Electoral College. It changes the method by which states select their presidential electors, guaranteeing that the Electoral College represents the majority of the voters in the country. He disputed the claim that the bill conflicts with Ranked-Choice Voting. The bill designates the final count as Alaska's official count on the Certificate of Attainment that shows the state's votes for president and choice of presidential electors. He noted that opponents of the compact have falsely claimed that it allows election officials in other states to judge Alaska's vote counts. The compact specifically requires all states belonging to the compact to treat Alaska's determination of the presidential vote count as final. 4:31:27 PM DR. KOZA also disputed the claim that rural areas would be ignored under a national popular vote. The evidence shows that every vote is equal in the battleground states where presidential candidates actually campaign. The winner is the candidate with the most votes. He cited the example from Pennsylvania which was the battleground state in 2020 that received the most visits. When every vote is equal a candidate can't ignore any area. He said another myth is that small states are Republican. Of the 14 states that have three and four electoral votes, seven are Republican and seven are Democratic. He dispelled other myths including the claim that California will dominate elections. It is one-eighth of the country by population but there is an equally loyal group of Republican states that balances California. CHAIR KAWASAKI asked if there were questions for Dr. Koza. 4:35:39 PM SENATOR BJORKMAN asked what outcomes he sees should the bill pass. DR. KOZA said you'll see that candidates have to campaign in every state because a campaign that neglects a state would be giving up votes. Small states would necessarily get the same attention as the current battleground states. Turnout would also rise because voters are more likely to vote when their vote has been solicited. SENATOR BJORKMAN asked if the idea is that presidential candidates would try to run up their margins in safe states. DR. KOZA said there aren't safe states in the National Popular Vote. Every voter counts and every vote is equal. Every candidate certainly will cater to favorable geographic and demographic groups, but that balances out so that every part of a state gets equal attention based on population. 4:40:21 PM CHAIR KAWASAKI opened public testimony on SB 61. 4:40:40 PM SAUL ANUZIS, representing self, Washington, DC, testified in support of SB 61. He stated that he comes from a partisan perspective and he wanted to dispel the notion that the bill is partisan. He believes that the bill is a bipartisan approach to a nonpartisan problem. His objective is to ensure that every voter in every state is politically relevant in every election. He cited examples that illustrate that the bill would provide American reform that ensures that every state becomes a battleground state and every voter is politically relevant. 4:43:52 PM MICHAEL OWENS, representing self, Palmer, Alaska, testified in opposition to SB 61. He opined that the bill is aligned with Ranked-Choice Voting and that it's bad for Alaska. The Electoral College has served the country well as evidenced in 2016 when it saved the country. SB 61 seeks to change what's worked so well for so long and he doesn't understand why anybody would support that. 4:46:16 PM JUDY ANDREE, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified in support of SB 61. She opined that the Electoral College provides a two-tiered system where everyone votes and then many votes are left at the state line. She believes that every vote should be equally powerful. She also pointed out that in recent years the Electoral College has become a national security issue that's made possible by modern technology that the founding fathers could not have predicted. She said it's imperative to adhere to the basic tenants of democracy while being flexible enough to correct problems that weaken democracy. The Electoral College may have been suitable in 1784 but America's purpose should be to build a more perfect union by keeping the notion of that perfection as the guiding star. 4:48:20 PM ALEX KOPLIN, representing self, Homer, Alaska, testified in support of SB 61. He said what he likes about SB 61 is that when he casts his vote for president, it goes to that candidate. Under the current system, his vote only counts if his candidate wins the election in Alaska. Otherwise, his vote doesn't matter. All three of Alaska's electoral votes go to the winner in the state, regardless of the popular vote. This gives states more power than individual voters when picking a president. If SB 61 were to pass, the winner of the popular vote would receive Alaska's three electoral votes. It makes sense that every voter should count. The people should decide who should be president, not the states. 4:50:57 PM KASSIE ANDREWS, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, stated opposition to SB 61. She argued that the Electoral College preserves the constitutional checks and balances to power that the founders intended. Every four years it provides a state-by- state snapshot of the trends and political thought in the country. She opined that switching to the National Popular Vote would leave small states out in the cold while presidential candidates would be focused on states like California and Texas. She described the National Popular Vote as an end run around the amendment process of the US Constitution. 4:52:29 PM KEN HUCKEBA, representing self, Wasilla, Alaska, stated that he vehemently disagrees with SB 61. He continued that there's a reason the US has a representative republic and not a democracy. True populism can be dangerous, particularly now when large amounts of money can manipulate an election. He cited the Bolshevik Revolution as evidence. The Electoral College was established to prevent such things. If it's abandoned in favor of the National Popular Vote, elections will be swamped with candidates from every ideological group. 4:54:32 PM KEN GRIFFIN, representing self, Wasilla, Alaska, stated opposition to SB 61 as a citizen of Alaska. He maintained that the biggest problem with elections is fraud. He mentioned the use of the World Wide Web to access information and posited that the idea that citizens aren't informed or that candidates aren't campaigning in Alaska is ridiculous. He said Trump never came to Alaska but he learned everything he needed to know about him as a citizen. He opined that the bill goes around the rules without going through the established process that has kept this country safe. 4:56:41 PM SEAN PARNELL, Save our State Action, Virginia, stated opposition to SB 61 and noted that he submitted written testimony to each of the committee members. He said the greatest defect in the compact is that there isn't an official national vote count that is reliably accurate and conclusive. He maintained that vote counts from other states might not be accurate and that ranked- choice voting will create additional issues because the compact doesn't stipulate that other states must use the number on the Certificate of Ascertainment. States can add phantom votes that other states would have to accept as valid. Finally, millions of votes could be excluded from the national vote if a state's election practices do not conform to the compact definition of a statewide popular election. He offered to send the California 2016 Certificate of Ascertainment which clearly shows an extra 4.2 million votes for Donald Trump and the New York 2008-2020 ascertainment certificates that show hundreds of thousands of missing votes. He concluded by saying that the winner takes all process can be fixed while keeping Alaskans in charge of Alaska's electoral votes. Such changes could be in place for the 2024 election cycle. CHAIR KAWASAKI asked him to send the letter he mentioned to senate.state.affairs@akleg.gov and he would distribute it to members. 5:02:11 PM PAT REDMOND, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, stated support for SB 61 and the national popular vote. She's been following the issue for 20-25 years and she believes it is a better way to ensure that every vote counts. She expressed optimism about moving forward into a new era of voting. 5:03:48 PM KARLA HART, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified in support of SB 61. She stated that she'd been following the national popular vote concept for a long time. Dr. Koza, the League of Women Voters, and the sponsor have spoken well to it. She encouraged the committee to keep the bill moving forward. 5:04:44 PM CHAIR KAWASAKI closed public testimony on SB 61 and held the bill in committee.