ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE  LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL  March 10, 2020  9:00 AM      MEMBERS PRESENT  Senator Gary Stevens, Chair  Representative Louise Stutes, Vice Chair  Senator Tom Begich  Senator John Coghill  Senator Cathy Giessel  Senator Lyman Hoffman  Senator Bert Stedman  Senator Natasha von Imhof  Representative Bryce Edgmon  Representative Neal Foster  Representative DeLena Johnson  Representative Jennifer Johnston  Representative Chuck Kopp  Representative Steve Thompson      MEMBERS ABSENT      OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT  Representative Drummond      AGENDA  Call to Order  Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative Hearing per AS 24.05.186  Adjourn      SPEAKER REGISTER  Cori Mills, Attorney, Department of Law  Megan Wallace, Director, Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency  Noah Klein, Counsel, Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency  Gail Fenumiai, Director, Division of Elections    9:01:01 AM    I. CALL TO ORDER    CHAIR STEVENS: called the Legislative Council meeting  to order at 9:01am in the State Capitol's Senate Finance  Committee Room and requested a roll call vote. Present at  the call were: Senators Begich, Coghill, Giessel, Hoffman,  Stedman, Stevens, von Imhof; Representatives Edgmon,  Foster, Johnson, Johnston, Thompson, Stutes. Representative  Kopp joined the meeting at 9:24am. 13 members present.      II. Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative Hearing    CHAIR STEVENS: Today we're going to comply with  Statute 24.05.186 in the course of the Legislature to hold  a hearing on any proposal, any initiative proposed, and the  purpose of this meeting is to comply and satisfy that  requirement.  Several individuals have been called to testify to us,  to speak to us, present at the meeting from the Department  of Law, Division of Elections, and Legislative Legal. Cori  Mills from the Department of Law is here with us. We also  have Megan Wallace, Noah Klein from the Legislative Legal,  and then Gail Fenumiai.  Just before we begin, if you'd look at your packet, on  the fourth page from the end there's this chart from the  very end, and it's to show the cost of this issue, but this  is the wrong chart. So ignore that one, and Ms. Fenumiai  and I will give us the right figure. So let's begin with  the Department of Law. Cori Mills, if you would come  forward. Thank you for being with us. State your name for  the record, please.  MS. MILLS: Good morning. Cori Mills, Assistant  Attorney General, Department of Law. Glad to be with you  again this morning. So I was going to start by just,  again, going briefly over the process.  I know we covered it last time, but for anyone that's  listening that may have not heard last time and how it  applies to this initiative, otherwise known as the Better  Elections Initiative or identified by the Division of  Elections as 19AKBE, so, again, talking about petition  certification, the lieutenant governor, with the Division  of Elections, has 60 days to review signatures.  In this case, the signatures I believe were put in on  January 9th. Yesterday the lieutenant governor sent  notification that the signatures were properly filed, so  they did meet the 10 percent requirement, as well as the  7 percent among three-quarters of the districts.  So at this point, the Division of Elections has been  directed to put this on the, most likely, general election  ballot, but it's whatever election -- statewide election  occurs 120 days after adjournment of the Legislature. So  it doesn't have to do with when certification of the  petition happened or when it was filed, it has everything  to do with when the Legislature adjourns this current  session. And if you adjourn by April 19th, it would be on  the primary. Anything after that would be on the general  unless there is an intervening statewide election between  the primary and the general. So that's kind of how the  process goes.  The only other piece that I covered last time that  I'll mention is if the Legislature and then the governor  signs or lets it become law without signature, enacts a law  that is substantially the same as the initiative, then the  initiative is considered void, and it would not go on the  ballot.  And just briefly, again, that test is really a scope,  purpose, means test that the Alaska Supreme Court has  applied to determine whether something is substantially  similar. And that means you look at the scope of the  subject matter, and the Legislature is afforded greater  authority or lesser latitude, depending on whether the  subject matter is broad or narrow.  And then you look at the purpose. The court must  consider whether the general purpose of the legislation is  the same as the general purpose of the initiative.  And then the means, whether the means by which that  purpose is effectuated are the same in both the legislation  and initiative, but the means only need to be fairly  comparable. Again, they don't have to be exact.  And so then if the measure goes on the primary or the  general election ballot and if a majority of the voters say  they want this initiative enacted, then it would be  effective. The effective date would be 90 days after  enactment, and enactment for a ballot measure occurs upon  certification of the election results.  So you're looking -- just for an example -- and I gave  this last time -- the marijuana initiative in 2014 went on  the general election ballot. Results were certified near  the end of November, and it was effective near the end of  February 2015. So that's kind of the time frame you'd be  looking at. So unless there are other questions on  process, I will move on to the sectional.  CHAIR STEVENS: Well, before you do that, I think what  most folks have spoken to me about their concerns about is  the ranked-choice issue. And if we're considering the  "substantially the same," to be substantially the same,  would it have to include a ranked-choice?  MS. MILLS: So, Chair Stevens, I can't predetermine  what a result would be in terms --  CHAIR STEVENS: Oh, sure you can. Go ahead.  MS. MILLS: -- of what the Department of Law would  look at, because we would be very much involved in that.  The attorney general actually has to concur in the decision  that it's substantially similar. But I would say that you  need to look at the major elements of the policy that's  encompassed within the initiative.  In this initiative there are really three major  policies. And the first is an open primary, an open  nonpartisan primary; the second is ranked-choice voting in  the general election; and the third is additional  disclosure and disclaimer requirements in our campaign  finance laws.  And so you would need to look at does whatever, you  know, we're looking to pass, as a Legislature, adhere to or  encompass those major policy goals in at least fairly  comparable means to what is occurring in the initiative?  Now, the example we have on substantially similar, we  have two examples: One where the court upheld it and said  it was substantially similar and the other where they did  not. And in Warren vs. Boucher, it was actually kind of  the initial passage or enactment of our campaign finance  laws as a state, and there was an initiative, and there  were quite a few differences.  There were differences in the numbers, the amount that  could be donated, contributed to a candidate, there were  differences in how media was addressed and whether media  certain disclosures were necessary, and yet the court still  found that the scope was broad, so the Legislature had more  latitude, that the general purpose was to create these  limits on campaign finance and have disclosures so that the  public knew who was contributing to campaigns, and then  that the means were fairly comparable. So you have an  example of a broader law.  Whereas in the case of -- I think it's State vs. Trust  the People, you had an initiative that was very narrow and  dealt with just the subject basically wanting to eliminate  the governor's power to appoint a Senate vacancy at the  congressional level.  And the Legislature passed a bill that still allowed a  temporary appointment in between a special election, and  the court found that that went too far, that the means were  not comparable, that this was narrow legislation,  therefore, the Legislature had lesser latitude. So I just  give that as all of the considerations that would need to  be taken into account if you're looking at passing  something substantially similar.  The only other note I do want to make, and I think you  may all be aware of this, but we are in litigation over  19AKBE. So when I say it's going to go on the ballot, it  will go on the ballot unless the Alaska Supreme Court tells  us it's not supposed to go on the ballot. We're still  waiting for that decision. It was argued February 19th  before the Alaska Supreme Court.  The issue was the attorney general recommended that  the lieutenant governor not certify the initiative  application because it violated the single subject rule.  The attorney general, you'll see in our opinion, determined  that there were really three subjects involved in the bill:  again, open primary, ranked-choice voting, and campaign  finance disclosures and that, therefore, under the Croft  vs. Parnell case -- that was decided I think back in  2014 -- that this should not be certified. The superior  court disagreed. That's why the signatures were gathered.  That's -- then the state appealed. That appeal is now  pending.  We have told the Supreme Court that if this were to go  on the primary ballot, we would need a decision I think by  June in order to make sure the Division of Elections had  enough time to prepare the ballot and not waste resources  putting something on the ballot that the court determines  should not go on the ballot.  So we expect the court to rule within that time frame  to make sure that the Division of Elections can adequately  do their job. But I did just want to put that out there  that that is still a pending issue. Aside from what I've  told you, I'm not going to talk a whole lot about it. It's  before the Supreme Court, and we'll find out what they say.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Ms. Mills. Senator Begich.  SENATOR BEGICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Cori, you  mentioned three issues here as the three major policies:  nonpartisan primary, ranked-choice, and campaign finance  law. But isn't there a fourth relating to federal  elections in here, a substantial fourth that changes  existing law, and could you comment on that?  MS. MILLS: So through the Chair, Senator Begich, we  have viewed that as part of the changes to an open primary  and part of the changes to ranked-choice voting, because  basically what it's doing is applying the open primary,  both a special open primary to fill a vacancy, as well as  just the normal open primary to all federal offices that  the state, the Senate, and Representatives, as well as the  ranked-choice voting to the general election for the  presidential election. So those are the ones I'm aware of.  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Begich.  SENATOR BEGICH: Just to follow up, doesn't it also  address the issue of special elections in terms of a  vacancy? And what -- for the rest of the members to know  exactly what it says, would you mind talking about that?  MS. MILLS: Oh, yes, through the Chair, Senator  Begich. So, and I'll go through this in the sectional as  well. But effectively right now in certain circumstances  we have what's called a special runoff election, but  parties are able to petition and put forward names of  their -- the candidate that they would like in that  election.  And now what it's doing is basically making all  elections the same so that you'd have a special primary  election, where, just like the open primary, anyone could  get in. The party petition process would be repealed and  anyone could get in on a special primary to fill a vacancy.  And then you'd have a special election after that.  SENATOR BEGICH: If I may interrupt, just fill a  vacancy for a United States Senate seat? I just want to be  clear about that for the folks to know that that's a very  specific thing that this does.  MS. MILLS: Yes, Senator Begich. So basically it's  for any vacancy that would have otherwise had any sort of  special election. It reverts to this process. So it's the  federal Senate seat, it's the governor. If for some reason  the lieutenant governor that succeeds is then no longer  able to hold office and you have the successor to the  lieutenant governor, it's that circumstance, and then it's  a special election for a state Senate seat as well under  the specific parameters where you have a special election  for a state Senate seat.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. Representative Drummond is  in the audience with us. Thank you for being here. Any  further questions? If not, would you please go on to the  sectional, Ms. Mills?  MS. MILLS: Yes. And for the sectional, we actually  did one in our attorney general opinion. You should find  that in your packet. I believe it's after the initiative  bill, and then you have one other document, and then you'll  have a letter dated August 29th.  Starting on page 2 is our general overview summary,  and then I think around page 3 or the bottom of page 2 it  starts on the sectional, if you want to follow along.  So as I said, there's three major changes here. And  so you'll find that pretty much every section of this bill  relates to one of those three changes or a combination of  two of those changes. So open nonpartisan primary,  ranked-choice voting in the general, and disclaimer and  disclosure requirements.  So starting with section -- so Sections 1 through 3  really have to do with the open primary -- I mean, Sections  2 and 3. Section 1 is just a findings and intent,  basically repeats what the major policies are, as well as  includes a statement that Alaska supports a constitutional  amendment allowing citizens to regulate the raising and  spending of money in elections, basically a statement that  we would like to see Citizens United overturned. That's in  the intent and findings section.  Then you go to Sections 2 and 3, which, again, mostly  have to do with the open primary. Section 2, you end up  having election boards. And right now you base it on the  political party that receives the most votes or the largest  number of registered voters at the time of the preceding  gubernatorial election, and now it's adding political  groups.  So basically it's saying maybe we'll have more  political groups in the scheme of things, and so we want to  allow, whether it's a political party or a political group,  whoever has the most number of registered voters, that's  who's going to be able to get a seat. And then the second  largest number of registered voters' political party or  political group, they also get to be appointed to this  election board. And there's a few other spots where they  do that. They basically add in political groups on the  same level as political party. You'll find that in a few  places.  Section 3, again, you can appoint one or more poll  watchers regardless of party affiliation or party  nomination. So right now the political parties have an  ability to have a poll watcher. This would allow basically  any candidate to appoint one or more poll watchers.  Then we move on to the changes to the campaign finance  laws, but I do want to note that some of these changes are  actually because of the change to the open primary and not  the disclosure and disclaimer requirements, and I'll note  those as I go along.  So Section 4, for example, is another one that  changes -- is a change because of the open primary. And,  again, it's allowing on APOC, as you may know. Right now  you -- the governor's appointments partly ensue because of  the political party and who retained the most number of  votes, who won the gubernatorial election. And then the  second largest number -- well, again, it's adding political  groups now, not just political parties. And political  parties have kind of a higher threshold to reach, and now  it's kind of putting them on the same plane as political  groups.  Section 5 is a conforming change. Section 6 would add  disclosure requirements relating to -- and I quote this --  the true source of contributions. There's a definition for  what a "true source" is. You know, and if this was  enacted, then the Alaska Public Office's Commission would  use that definition and determine what that is.  SENATOR COGHILL: Mr. Chairman.  CHAIR STEVENS: Please, Senator Coghill.  SENATOR COGHILL: That's a new concept in law, if I  understand correctly?  MS. MILLS: Through the Chair, correct.  SENATOR COGHILL: All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes. Senator von Imhof.  SENATOR VON IMHOF: When you say "new concept," is  that defined statewide, or is that defined nationally, true  source? What is true -- where is true source defined?  MS. MILLS: Through the Chair, Senator von Imhof,  there's a definitions -- a new definition section put into  this bill. So it would be in state law, true source dark  money, and I think it's like out-of-state or outside  groups, something like that. Those are the three new terms  that would added to the law and defined in this bill.  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator von Imhof.  SENATOR VON IMHOF: In your research, do you know of  any other state that has recently defined "true source,  dark money," et cetera?  MS. MILLS: Through the Chair, Senator von Imhof, I'm  not aware of any. I do have to say I did not do a whole  lot of looking at other states. I was really just  concerned with this initiative bill and what it's got.  CHAIR STEVENS: And maybe definition of "dark money"  would be helpful for the public.  MS. MILLS: Yeah. So it's Section 17 through 19 are  those definitions. And I'll go over those really quick  because I think it will help as I go through.  So Section 17, it would amend AS 15.13.400. That's  where the general definitions in the campaign finance laws  are located. Dark money means a contribution whose source  or sources, whether from wages, investment income,  inheritance, or revenue generated from selling goods or  services, is not disclosed to the public, notwithstanding  the foregoing to the extent a membership, organization  receives dues or contributions of less than $2,000 per  person per year, the organization itself shall be  considered the true source. So, then, again, dark money  refers to true source.  So true source, which is Section 18, means the person  or legal entity whose contribution is funded from wages,  investment income, inheritance, or revenue generated from  selling goods or services. A person or legal entity who  derived funds via contributions, donations, dues, or gifts  is not the true source but rather an intermediary for the  true source. And, again, there's a notwithstanding the  foregoing membership organization kind of exception.  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator von Imhof has a question.  SENATOR VON IMHOF: Thank you. So this means that  anybody who's donated more than 2,000 annually would be  listed on the APOC, Alaska Public Office Commission report,  but we still have the top three donors on any advertising.  Does this bill affect those -- the top three donors listed  on any advertising materials?  MS. MILLS: Senator von Imhof, through the Chair, that  law is not impacted by this initiative bill.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. Please, continue,  Ms. Mills.  MS. MILLS: So I'll just go over Section 19, because  that's the other new term, "outside funded entity." And  that means an entity that makes one or more independent  expenditures. So you're only talking about independent  expenditure groups in one or more candidate elections and  that during the previous 12-month period received more than  50 percent of its aggregate contributions from true  sources -- again, using that term -- who, at the time of  contribution, resided or had their principal place of  business outside of Alaska. So you're looking at  50 percent or more of the contributors -- of the  contributions resided or had their principal place of  business outside of Alaska.  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Coghill.  SENATOR COGHILL: Since you looked at this, do you  think -- is it clear to you that the people who put this  initiative out complied with those definitions?  CHAIR STEVENS: I'm sorry. I could not hear your  question. Could you try it again, Senator Coghill?  SENATOR COGHILL: My question is, do the people who  put this initiative forward comply with the spending  reporting requirements that they're putting in here, just  as a point?  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you.  MS. MILLS: So through the Chair, Senator Coghill, I  have to say I didn't look at any of their advertising or  where their sources came from. You know, that would be a  question for the Alaska Public Offices Commission.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. Representative Kopp, thank  you for being here. Please continue, Ms. Mills.  MS. MILLS: Yeah. So I think then I will go back to  Section 7. So Section 6, again, was adding the true source  in excess of 2,000, and that's the theme you will see, that  it's an excess of 2,000 is really where a lot of these  disclosure and disclaimer requirements start kicking in.  And so if -- you know, it requires disclosures from every  individual person, non-group entity, or group that  contributes more than $2,000 annually to an independent  expenditure group.  And then Section 8 goes back to really a change  because of the open primary. So under the open primary  system, you would actually have a governor and lieutenant  governor run jointly from the very beginning, because the  primary would be more about narrowing down the field for  the general, not about political party nominations.  And so it would change the joint campaign limit to  $1,000 for governor and lieutenant governor. Instead of  each of them having their own campaigns, it would be a  joint campaign, and they doubled the limit basically to  account for that. So that's more an open primary change.  And then we go to Section 9, and you're back to kind  of the new disclosure requirements. And this is about the  dark money and basically that the disclosure requirements  for contributions, again, to independent expenditure groups  may not annually total 2,000 or more of the dark money  where the true source isn't identified.  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator von Imhof.  SENATOR VON IMHOF: Just going back to Section 8, I  just find it interesting that trying to be more of an open  primary, yet it seems kind of counterintuitive that prior  to the primary, that a ticket would be combined, that a  lieutenant governor and governor would be combined, forcing  this pairing for voters versus one -- each election on its  own. How is that giving voters more choices? How is that  giving voters more flexibility when you're forcing a  pairing? Just curious.  MS. MILLS: Through the Chair, Senator von Imhof, I  don't have any comment on the policy, but, you know,  that's -- in order to encompass the open primary system  with a lieutenant governor and governor pair, that's how  the sponsors chose to put it together.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. Further comments? Please  continue, Ms. Mills.  MS. MILLS: Okay. And then Section 10 is just  conforming changes.  Section 11, this would require that certain existing  disclaimers on paid political advertisements be shown  throughout the entirety of the communication if in a  broadcast cable, satellite, Internet, or other digital  format. So it's taking existing disclaimers but just  requiring that they're there for a longer duration.  Section 12, additional disclaimer on political  advertisements funded by the outside entities. So that  goes back to that definition. So this only has to do with  independent expenditure groups that receive  contributions -- more than 50 percent of their  contributions from these outside-funded entities, and it  would require an additional disclaimer on any paid  political advertisements.  So Section 13, again, conforming changes.  Section 14, this is, again, the $2,000. So disclosure  by individual contributors whose contributions to  independent expenditure groups exceed $2,000 annually. So  you're basically covering the gamut on everyone who gives  over $2,000 annually to an independent expenditure group,  or an independent expenditure group that receives more than  $2,000 from an individual contributor would have to  disclose that.  Section 15 would create new fines for failure to  disclose certain contributions to independent expenditure  groups as required by Section 7 and Section 9. And those,  again, are the dark money and the -- just the contributions  of more than $2,000 annually to an independent expenditure  group.  Section 16, conforming changes.  And then we already went through 17 through 19, which  defines those new terms. So those would all be statutes  added to --  CHAIR STEVENS: One moment, please. Senator von Imhof  has a question.  SENATOR VON IMHOF: I just think -- as you go through  17 and 19, just to reiterate what Senator Coghill stated, I  think it is very important that are the initiative  supporters themselves following the true source, dark  money, outside-funded entity over-reporting at this time  leading by example? That I think that this committee, as  we move forward on this, should absolutely check with APOC  on a regular basis and make sure that this dark money, true  source, et cetera, et cetera is properly being vetted,  because if the initiative supporters themselves are being  cagey, well, isn't that interesting?  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator von Imhof. Senator  Coghill.  SENATOR COGHILL: Probably the question at this point  would be, candidates will be subject to this, but will  initiatives be subject to this?  MS. MILLS: Through the Chair, Senator Coghill, I'd  have to go back and look at exactly how it's worded. The  main thrust is that it's independent expenditure groups,  but I'd have to go back and see exactly what that applies  to.  SENATOR COGHILL: Mr. Chairman, I think that's  something we need to consider as we move forward.  CHAIR STEVENS: A very important question. And you'll  research that and get back to us?  MS. MILLS: I'm happy to do that, yeah.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you.  MS. MILLS: So now we're going to move back into kind  of the regular how elections are run instead of the  campaign finance with Section 20. And Section 20 is --  basically would establish the open primary system.  And then Section 21 would allow each candidate to have  his or her party affiliation designated after the  candidate's name on the ballot or choose the designation of  nonpartisan or undeclared. So, again, you're talking about  an open nonpartisan primary. Anybody gets to be a part of  it. There's one primary ballot, and each candidate gets to  choose what designation they have after their name.  Sections 22 through 23 would then require additional  notices on the ballot and at each polling place, letting  voters know that a candidate's designated party affiliation  on the ballot does not signify the political party or  political group's approval or endorsement of that  candidate. And you'll see later that it's also required in  the election pamphlet itself.  Section 24, this is really the crux of your  ranked-choice voting. This is where it's laid out and  required. So it would establish ranked-choice voting,  again, only for the general election, whereby each voter  may rank all of the candidates. You don't have to, but you  could rank all of the candidates.  This section would provide how the ranked-choice votes  should be counted. So you start with the number-one  ranking on all ballots. If there are more than two  candidates and none of the candidates gets a majority of  the total votes after a first round of counting, the  candidate with the least amount of votes would be removed  from the count. Okay?  And ballots that ranked that candidate as one on their  ballot would then be counted for the second-ranked  candidate on those ballots. So you'd move to number two  for those where their first candidate got removed from  counting.  This would continue until a candidate obtains a  majority or there are only two candidates remaining, at  which point the candidate with the highest number of votes  wins. So you're either looking for a majority over  50 percent, or you're down to two candidates and whoever  gets the most votes. So that's ranked-choice voting.  SENATOR COGHILL: Mr. Chairman.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Senator Coghill.  SENATOR COGHILL: So if there is a clear majority on  the first round, I get that. But at this point, you're now  starting to change the dynamic from the majority vote to  the highest vote count. That is a different set of  circumstances I think. So it's something to ponder as we  go forward in this particular issue. I could see some  circumstances where a vote count may be lower than the  majority votes cast for an individual. So I think I'll  have to look and see how that works, but it does create a  question in my mind. That's all. Thank you.  CHAIR STEVENS: Important to think that through  because there is a -- essentially a disadvantage for the  voter who only chooses to vote for one, and that changes  the dynamics of it. Senator von Imhof.  SENATOR VON IMHOF: Thank you. So in theory then, all  the electronic votes or the voting pieces of paper run  through the machine the first time and there's not a  majority winner. So they take all those pieces of paper  and run them through again. There's still not a majority  winner. They take all those pieces of paper and run them  through again. So basically what we're having is a bunch  of secret runoffs, because there's a calculation in the  back that's happening as we're running through all these  ballots again and again if we're running them off and  running them off and it's all secret. Does the initiative  say that there's going to be an announcement? So Candidate  A is no longer -- we're giving you an update. Candidate A  got only ten votes, and so that person is no longer there.  So we're going to run them off again. And we have these  whole bunch of people that are watching this or not  watching it. They're running off again, thousands of  ballots, tens of thousands. So then do they give us an  update again? Candidate B is now no longer there. Or is  this all done just -- and at the very, very end this is who  wins?  MS. MILLS: So through the Chair, Senator von Imhof,  there is no requirement of that sort of announcement in the  initiative bill.  CHAIR STEVENS: Just so I understand, I think it will  lead to talks at the Division of Elections about how that's  interpreted. And, you know, the big advantage I think in  the Alaska election system is that we have paper ballots,  and we can always go back and recount them. This adds a  pretty confusing issue when you keep running them through  the machine. Anyway, maybe we can ask our commissioner or  our elections folks about that. Senator Begich.  SENATOR BEGICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just  without either supporting or opposing this initiative, I  would just clarify that similar to a system that -- it  sounds like it's similar to a system, though, with limits  that's used in Australia.  I mean, and so that's probably what I'd ask our  division director, how that works, because this looks like  it's limited so that it wouldn't be every single election  but that there is -- Minneapolis uses a system like this,  where they're constantly reporting the data, who's being  taken off, and it's reported on a daily basis, but it takes  a lot of time.  My question, and maybe it's for the lieutenant -- I  mean, for the director of the Division of Elections but  maybe for you. Do we even have machine that can -- we just  bought new software. Do you know if that -- is that really  a question for the Division of Elections? It is. So I'll  withhold that question until later. We just purchased new  machines, so --  CHAIR STEVENS: We did.  SENATOR BEGICH: -- I don't even know if they can  accommodate this.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Begich. Further  questions or comments? Ms. Mills.  MS. MILLS: So then Sections 25 through basically 29  are different conforming changes for either ranked-choice  voting or the open primary system. So I'm not going to  spend a lot of time on those.  Moving to Section 30, this is similar to the change in  the APOC commission membership. Again, you have four  district absentee ballot counting boards and questioned  ballot counting boards, and there's a certain way those  numbers are appointed. This would add in that basically a  political group could be viewed the same as political party  when you're looking at how many registered voters and so  who gets representation on those boards.  Sections 31 through 36, again, conforming changes.  Section 37 is kind of your crux for the open primary.  The primary would no longer serve to determine the nominee  of a political party or political group. Instead, the  primary would narrow the number of candidates whose name  would appear on the general election ballot to four. So  everybody runs, and then it's the top four that move on to  the general election.  And so Section 38, this goes back to the governor and  lieutenant governor. It would amend the candidate  declaration to require that candidates for governor and  lieutenant governor include the name of the candidate's  running partner. So you basically choose ahead of time  before heading into the primary who your running partner  is.  Section 39 relates to the open primary. It  establishes the process for preparation and distribution of  ballots to account for the open primary system where there  would only be one primary ballot. So this current statute  deals with having the separate ballots, depending on which  political party. This would turn it into a one primary  ballot system.  Section 40, again, relating to the open primary, would  repeal and reenact the statute that establishes which  candidates will be placed on the general election ballot.  Again, you have the top four move on, and it would also  include a process for filling a vacancy that occurs after  the primary election. There's statutes for dealing with  that now, but, again, you'd get rid of the party petition  process, and there would be another process by which you  could fill a vacancy if it occurs after the primary but  before the general.  Section 41 would allow a write-in candidate at the  general election to designate his or her political party or  political group affiliation or be designated as undeclared  or nonpartisan, similar to what you're allowed in the open  primary.  Section 42 would eliminate the requirement for  write-in candidates, that a candidate for governor run  jointly with a candidate for lieutenant governor from the  same political party or group. Again, you could choose who  your running mate is and political party affiliation  wouldn't matter.  Section 43 would provide that the ranked-choice method  of voting in the general election also applies to the  election of electors of president and vice president.  Again, you wouldn't -- the primary wouldn't fit in there.  You'd have the same nomination process for getting onto the  general election ballot for a presidential election, but  the way you choose them, you choose the ranked-choice  voting method in the general election.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. Senator Begich.  SENATOR BEGICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Going back,  just very briefly, to Section 38 and then moving into these  other sections. If it's a primary campaign with no party  affiliation, then there would be no requirement for  governor and lieutenant gubernatorial candidate to be of  the same party if they were running as a team. Would there  be under this initiative?  MS. MILLS: So through the Chair, Senator Begich,  there would not be a requirement that they be of the same  party.  SENATOR BEGICH: Okay. Thank you.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. Senator von Imhof.  SENATOR VON IMHOF: So is there anything in this  initiative that talks about changing your party, as in "I'm  going to change my party in June. The primary is in  August" or anything about changing your party year after  year? One year you're Republican, the next year you're  Democrat, and then all of a sudden you're a political party  group the third year? I mean, is there anything on that?  MS. MILLS: So through the Chair, Senator von Imhof,  there -- this initiative bill does not address that at all.  I will say that, thinking about our current laws, I don't  think there's anything on that either except that, you  know, you have to be a Republican -- the parties get to  choose what their qualifications are for their candidates  in their primary. That's the requirement. But a party, as  we've seen because we had a recent court case on it, can  choose to open up their primary to more than just members  of their party as it stands right now.  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Begich.  SENATOR BEGICH: And just to clarify, thank you,  Mr. Chairman. But a party could also choose to pick its --  select its candidate by caucus. There's no prohibition on  that either. They don't have to go to a primary process,  do they? Other states don't. Is there a requirement that  a party here use a primary?  MS. MILLS: Through the Chair, Senator Begich, in  order to have your candidate on the general election ballot  as a nominee of your party --  SENATOR BEGICH: Let me clarify.  MS. MILLS: Okay.  SENATOR BEGICH: So under this initiative, you  wouldn't have a party affiliation. So if a party wanted to  make its choice for who it was going to signal whom they  supported, which candidate or candidates they supported,  they would still have a process. They could run it through  their own primary. In fact, I think this year my party is  running its own primary for president. They're actually  running a primary election, which they're paying for. I  don't believe the state's paying for it. Or you could have  a caucus process. Again, parties pay for their caucus  processes now for the presidential elections.  And they could do what Minnesota, for example, does  when they select who they prefer, or the state of Utah,  where they select who they prefer, or the state of  Colorado, where a certain percentage is required as a  threshold or you don't get the official endorsement of the  party. All those might be -- all those would be -- under  even current law we could be doing those kinds of things.  And then, of course, under current law you'd have the  primary process, and then under this law you would have a  primary process without partisanship indicated. Would that  be basically correct?  MS. MILLS: So through the Chair, Senator Begich, that  is correct. The parties have authority to determine how  they decide who they're going to endorse. The real change  is here is in the state-funded primary process.  SENATOR BEGICH: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you for the questions. Please  continue.  MS. MILLS: Okay. So we were on -- so that was 38,  39 --  CHAIR STEVENS: 43 I think we did.  MS. MILLS: Yeah, ranked-choice. So, yeah, we did the  ranked-choice voting. Okay. And then Sections 44 through  49 -- and really if you go down to 50 through 54, this is  where you take the filling of vacancies that would normally  go through either a special runoff process or some sort of  party petition process, would become a special primary  conducted as an open primary to fill a vacancy, followed by  a special election. And this would apply to the office of  United States Senator or United States Representative.  And then 50 through 54 would amend the special  election process for filling a vacancy in the Office of the  Governor. And, again, that's only if you have a lieutenant  governor who succeeds and then has to step down and you're  really stuck with the successor of the lieutenant governor  as governor. That's when this circumstance applies. And,  again, you'd have a special primary conducted as an open  primary, followed by a special election instead of a party  petition process.  SENATOR COGHILL: Mr. Chairman.  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Coghill.  SENATOR COGHILL: Probably Section 43 changes one  significant fact. At this point, we have done a  winner-takes-all on electors, for the most part, and that  is whatever party gets the general election gets to pick  the electors, and that is three votes that could tip the  balance of United States power.  In this particular case, what we've done is  surrendered that to a ranked-choice voting selection style.  And I think that's a significant change. So I don't think  that that falls into one of the major policy calls. I  think that is a policy call to itself, just to let you  know.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you.  MS. MILLS: So Section 55, this would amend the  statute providing for the qualifications and the  confirmation process for an appointee to a vacant  legislative office, to include political group along with  political party. This is, again, taking political group to  be on the same level as a political party. So if you have  a member of a specific political group, then being part of  that political group would then become part of the  qualifications in order to fill a legislative vacancy that  doesn't require the special election.  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Begich.  SENATOR BEGICH: Thank you. Cori, what do we do now  when independent -- for example, if they were to resign,  how would we deal with that now under the law? I'm just  curious.  MS. MILLS: So through the Chair, Senator Begich, and  I'd have to look back again specifically at the statute,  but it does account for that.  And basically, first of all, if you have an  independent who's essentially caucusing with one party,  they would take that into account. If you had -- and that  group would be the ones to vote on whoever is appointed,  but otherwise the governor has to appoint someone who is  also an independent. And if it comes down to them not  having any sort of caucus or affiliation, as I recall, then  they -- that appointment would just stand. I don't think  you have any vote that occurs because that person is not  part of any particular group within the Legislature.  CHAIR STEVENS: So if an independent were to resign or  be replaced, replaced by an independent, if that first  independent was in a caucus, the caucus would have to  decide whether to accept them; is that correct?  MS. MILLS: Yes, if that particular independent was  really part of and caucusing with a specific affiliated  caucus group, that caucus group would have a say.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you.  MS. MILLS: As I recall.  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Begich, further question on  that?  SENATOR BEGICH: I think what I'd like is,  Mr. Chairman, if perhaps with a little more thought and a  little more time, the Department of Law would provide a  more detailed or nuance description -- that would be  helpful -- as opposed to just here at the table, because,  of course, this Legislature has, for the bulk of its  history in either the Senate or the House, had bipartisan  caucuses where at least one member of another party has  been in those caucuses, including, quite frankly, now both  majority caucuses and currently. So I'd be very careful  about that. I would want to have a more clear idea of what  that is. I think we should have a more clear idea of what  that is.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Begich. So,  Ms. Mills, if you could clarify that. Send us your  comments to my office, and we'll make sure we distribute it  to everybody.  MS. MILLS: Happy to do that. So we have gone through  55. We're now on 56 through 60. This is, again, filling a  vacancy in the state Senate and would provide for a special  primary conducted as an open primary followed by a special  election, as we discussed before.  Section 61 through 63, just conforming changes.  Section 64 through 66 would specify what the election  pamphlets have to include, or they do now. And this would  add requirements. So for the general election and the  primary to include a notice to voters that any political  party or political group affiliation listed next to a  candidate does not represent the political party or group's  endorsement or nomination. That's similar to what has to  go on the ballot, as well as the polling place.  And then election pamphlets would also include an  explanation of the open primary system and how that works.  And, lastly, the general election pamphlet would  explain the ranked-choice voting method. So those would be  new requirements for the division to include in their  pamphlet.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you.  MS. MILLS: Again, 67, 68, conforming changes.  69 would amend the definition of political party by  deleting language referring to the nomination of a  candidate by the group seeking to be recognized as a  political party. So right now how you determine whether  you've reached political party status has to do with how  many votes your nominated candidate received in the general  election. And because you would no longer have a party  nomination process, a party -- political party primary,  that would no longer apply.  So that language is deleted, which leaves you with  political party status would only be determined by the  number of registered voters the group has, not the number  of votes a prior nominated candidate received. So you'd  look at the number of registered voters that are registered  to that party.  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator von Imhof.  SENATOR VON IMHOF: Does this mean that like a  political group is sort of like a subset of a political  party? I mean, I could be Republican, and I could be Tea  Party, or I could be XYZ, you know, Big Hats or whatever it  is. I mean, does it mean that you're -- is it a subset, or  is it now we have Republicans, Democrats, and then any  number of things?  MS. MILLS: Through the Chair, Senator von Imhof, I  think the latter is an apt description. I would say  Director Fenumiai has been dealing with this for years.  They have a number of political groups at any one time that  are sitting on the edge, and they always have to do a check  as to whether they have become a political party. And then  you can also fall out of political party status.  The Libertarian Party is a really good example of one  that, you know, in a presidential election you might reach  above the threshold, and so all of a sudden they have an  opportunity to be part of the primary process. And then  they'll fall out of it when it's not a presidential  election because you don't have as many voters voting for  the Libertarian candidate. That's just one example. But  you could be any number of political groups that are  sitting, waiting to reach the threshold in any given  election so that they can then be a political party for the  next election.  SENATOR VON IMHOF: I have one more question.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, please, Senator von Imhof.  SENATOR VON IMHOF: Okay. So just kind of the  political group, political party, then you said caucus. So  we had a situation that when Governor Dunleavy was a  senator, he left the caucus. He was Republican, but he  left the caucus. Then he quit, and we filled him with  Senator Mike Shower. It was the Republicans at that  point -- because Mike was Republican -- both Mikes were  Republicans, that's who chose him. But if Dunleavy was not  part of the caucus, he was not part of any group under  this, who would have chosen him?  MS. MILLS: Through the Chair, Senator von Imhof, are  you speaking specifically to if there was an open primary,  or what are the current --  SENATOR VON IMHOF: To fill a vacant legislative seat,  a vacant -- I mean, does this deal with a vacated  legislative seat after a primary or within 30 days, 60  days, or are we talking just an election? Are we talking  about like how this body -- or like an election?  MS. MILLS: So on Section 55, through the Chair,  Senator von Imhof, specifically is relating to filling a  vacancy by gubernatorial appointment and then who has to  vote within the Legislature on that appointment.  SENATOR VON IMHOF: Right.  MS. MILLS: And so this would -- if you are not part  of a political group or a political party, if the person  who was in the office who vacated it wasn't within either  of those groups, then there is -- which I just can't  remember right now -- there's existing language on what you  do with those types of individuals, and that would not  change.  CHAIR STEVENS: I think probably -- I'm going to add,  what if you are a party one and are replaced and there's  nobody to confirm your replacement? Interesting conundrum.  Thank you for bringing that up. Further comments? Yes,  Representative Kopp.  REPRESENTATIVE KOPP: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It  occurs to me there's a very significant educational process  for the public to understand all the nuances of this  initiative that may take a considerable amount of time  just, you know, going through the sectional, the  highlights. It's a significant change to how they run  today.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Representative. It's well  worthwhile to go through these details. Senator Begich.  SENATOR BEGICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just two  points of clarification: We have actually had a situation  where we had one party represented. We had one and then  two Libertarians in the early '80s in the Legislature. So  I'd be curious to know, you know, how we would have done  that.  And then, secondarily, to Representative Kopp's  comment, I think you're about to get to Section 74, which  acknowledges the complexity by providing a two-year time  period for the Director of Elections to educate the public  before the initiative takes --  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. And, Ms. Mills, any  clarification you give us at a later date would be  appreciated. Thank you.  MS. MILLS: Yes, I am happy to do that. I would refer  you -- I did find the statute. It's -- 15.40.330 is the  statute that talks about qualification and confirmation of  appointees when filling a vacancy. And I'll get back to  you in writing, but if anyone wants to look it up  themselves, that's the statute, 15.40.330.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. We are on 70; is that  right?  MS. MILLS: Yes. So, and this would just add a  definition of ranked-choice voting basically along the  lines of what we already discussed earlier about having --  being able to rank all of the candidates. If your  candidate has the least amount of votes and there's no  majority, you would then -- your vote would then be counted  for your second ranked-choice.  71, conforming changes.  72 is repealers. This is a fairly long list of  repealers. And effectively what it does is it repeals  statutes relating to party petitions. So when political  parties put in a petition to fill a vacancy in a special  election, it would get rid of that because, again, now  you're moving to an open special primary. It would get rid  of --  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Coghill has a question on that  point.  SENATOR COGHILL: So one of the things that we get to  do as legislators, when a bill is a presented to us, we get  to look at the repealers, because those are pretty  significant policy calls in themselves because the -- not  only does it change the structure, but it is undoing a lot  of things that have some historical and actually court  context to it. Is there any reason that in an election  pamphlet we would put a description of those repealers?  MS. MILLS: Through the Chair, Senator Coghill, are  you specifically speaking I assume about the ballot  summary --  SENATOR COGHILL: Yes.  MS. MILLS: -- that's included?  SENATOR COGHILL: I mean, we have 70 sections of the  bill, and 72 is a section of 22 repealers that all are  pretty significant policy calls, notwithstanding the policy  calls that are replacing them.  And I think for me, in full disclosure people should  see what is compared to what they're going to put in place.  I know that requires a lot of printing, but I think this  can be disingenuous to the people of Alaska if we just put  in repeal these languages. And just a point, so --  MS. MILLS: Through the Chair, Senator Coghill, I  appreciate that. And I'll -- you know, I think the  division director is sitting here, and we can take that  back to the lieutenant governor.  They are -- we are pretty prescribed on what we put  in, you know, and the entire initiative bill I think gets  put in the election pamphlet, and then there's a ballot  summary, and the ballot summary has been written. It was  provided with the notifications yesterday, and it may  already be on the division's website.  The ballot summary does make it clear that you're  eliminating political party primaries. And most of these  repealers are basically getting rid of any ability, from a  state perspective, for the political parties to make a  nomination that then gets on any sort of general election  or special election ballot. And that's why I said it  repeals any statutes relating to party petitions, any  statutes relating to no-party candidates because now you no  longer have the petition process for no-party candidates.  They just have to participate in the primary or be a  write-in candidate. Those are now your two options.  And then it also repeals all of the special runoff  elections because, again, you're moving to an open primary.  So, Senator Coghill, through the Chair, I'd be happy to  share that ballot summary also with the Legislative  Council.  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Coghill.  SENATOR COGHILL: Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate  probably they're going to have to summarize, but the  summarization quite often glosses over some of the  fundamentals, for example, the money coming in and out of  the state, the money changing from one person to another,  again, at a campaign, the way we elect our electors, the  way we do runoffs. I mean, you start going down the list  of what has changed and what's being pulled out of law that  already has some court precedence to them is something that  I think the public is not getting the full story on. So  it's just something to think about.  And I don't know if we can summarize those, but  probably that's the best we can do. But I think the  summary could as long as the 74 sections of this law, just  for what it's worth. But I think -- just for me,  Mr. Chairman, I think we're being disingenuous to the  people of the Alaska if we don't tell them what those  repealers are.  CHAIR STEVENS: Very good point. Thank you.  MS. MILLS: So that's the repealers. And, like I  said, it is a substantial list, but that's what it's doing  is getting -- really getting rid of those three categories  of statutes.  Section 73 is a severability clause. You'll find  these in most initiative petitions these days.  And then Section 74, as Senator Begich pointed out  earlier, would require -- it's a temporary uncodified law  to require the Director of Elections for two years to make  efforts to inform voters of the changes made to the state  selection process under this initiative bill. And --  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator von Imhof.  SENATOR VON IMHOF: Thank you. So you talked a lot  about political group, and I did find that it is, in fact,  defined in statute, but it's not very clear. And  essentially it says, "Political group means a group of  organized voters which represents a political program and  which is not qualified as a political party." "Represents  a political program," what's that?  MS. MILLS: Through the Chair, Senator von Imhof,  again, I think the director could talk about their process  for taking applications for political groups and the  process they go through on reviewing those for what they do  currently.  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Begich.  SENATOR BEGICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to  clarify, the ranked-choice process -- just going back  through -- I've been thinking about your sectional -- does  that apply to the primary, or is the primary just a  straight primary, open primary, top four go then to a  ranked-choice process to the general?  MS. MILLS: Through the Chair, Senator Begich, your  latter is correct. So it only applies to the general  election. So you get your top four from the primary.  Those go on the general election, and then you get to do  your ranked-choice. In the primary it would be a one vote  for each position.  CHAIR STEVENS: Any further questions? Thank you very  much. Senator Giessel.  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Cori, could you clarify with what  you just said? So in the primary, a plurality would be a  winner. In the general, ranked-choice voting would apply,  and, again, in that ranked-choice voting, again, a  plurality declares the winner. It doesn't have to be  50 percent plus one; am I correct?  MS. MILLS: Through the Chair, Senator Giessel,  correct. And you would have your top four within that  plurality go on to the general election ballot.  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator. Further questions  or comments? Ms. Mills, thank you for your knowledge and  your expertise and your ability to answer questions on the  fly here. I appreciate it. We are expecting some more  responses from you, which we'll share with the members.  Thank you very much.  MS. MILLS: Happy to do that.  CHAIR STEVENS: We'll move on to comments from  Legislative Legal. And I'd ask Megan Wallace and Noah  Klein to come forward, if you would, please. Thank you for  being with us. And if you'd put yourselves on the record,  please.  MS. WALLACE: Good morning. For the record, Megan  Wallace, Director of Legal Services, and I have with me  today, Noah Klein, legislative counsel, also with Legal  Services.  MR. KLEIN: Good morning. Noah Klein, legislative  counsel with Legal Services.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you.  MS. WALLACE: Before I get into our prepared outline  to address issues, there's a couple -- just hearing some of  the questions that have been asked, there are just a few  minor points of clarification or to answer a few questions  that have come up this morning that I might make a brief  comment on.  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, please.  MS. WALLACE: With respect to I believe it was Senator  von Imhof and Senator Coghill's question regarding the  Section 17 through 19, which defined the new terms "dark  money, true source, and outside-funded entity," there was a  question about whether those -- the contribution  limitations that are -- that were put on, whether they  apply to initiatives. And the definition for  "contribution" -- which is already defined in statute --  does, in fact, mean -- also means influencing a ballot  proposition or question. So those new requirements would  also apply to initiatives.  Moving on, just briefly, there was some questions  about certification or disclosure of the ranked-choice  results. And in Section 26 of the initiative, while I  can't speak as to how the division would make those  announcements, Section 26 of the initiative does  specifically state that the number of votes for each round  of the ranked-choice tabulation process would be certified,  and so, therefore, it implies that it will be made public,  each round of the counting.  And there was just a large discussion about political  groups. And as Senator von Imhof pointed out, that is  already a term that we use in statute. And Ms. Fenumiai  can speak more about the process, but there is already an  application process in -- that exists now. And on the  Division of Elections website, they keep a list of -- or  there's a public list of political groups who have filed  applications currently on the website.  Just some examples to educate the committee and maybe  the public that is watching, some of the political groups  that have filed applications include the Alaska  Constitution Party, the Green Party of Alaska, OWL Party,  Moderate Party of Alaska, and there's others. So those are  examples of political groups as they exist in the state  today, which would then be included in part of the vacancy  process for the legislative offices that we were just  discussing.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Ms. Wallace. I appreciate  those clarifications.  MS. WALLACE: Just a reminder to the public,  Legislative Legal Services is a nonpartisan agency that  provides legal advice and drafting services to the  Legislature. So our comments here today are politically  neutral and issues that we have independently identified  with respect to the Better Elections Initiative.  I wanted to start by discussing the legal standard if  there were to be challenges post-enactment to the  initiative, what a court would look at if there were  questions about what a provision means. Is it vague?  Those kinds of questions would be presented to a court.  When a court construes an initiative, it does so in a  manner that differs from the manner in which a court would  maybe construe a statute that is enacted by the  Legislature.  So the Alaska Supreme Court has noted that, when they  are construing the meaning of ambiguous statutes, they  often will look at the plain meaning and maybe the  legislative history whenever possible, but that process is  different when they are reviewing a ballot initiative.  So when the Supreme Court -- the Alaska Supreme Court  is reviewing the language of a ballot initiative, it will  look to the published arguments made in support or  opposition to determine what meaning the voters may have  attached to the initiative.  And the court made a point to say that it will not  accord special weight to the stated intentions of an  individual sponsor. So, to me, that's an important  distinction, too, to keep in mind with respect to the  manner in which a court construes these initiative  petitions. And that standard would apply to not only this  initiative but the initiative we discussed last time, the  oil tax initiative.  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Begich.  SENATOR BEGICH: So I'm curious about that. Thank  you, Mr. Chairman. You're saying it's not the stated  intention of the sponsor but the public statements that are  made. But aren't the public statements that are made often  made by the sponsor of an initiative petition? And what is  the distinction there, and where do they come together?  We've -- for example, in both of these initiatives, we  haven't actually heard from the sponsors. We've only heard  from Leg. Legal, Department of Law, et cetera. So where's  that distinction drawn? Because it sounds to me then that  any testimony that a sponsor might make would not be  relevant, but what would be relevant would be their public  statements that they're making when they're not before a  committee. Am I understanding that? Is that what you just  said?  MS. WALLACE: Through the Chair, Senator Begich, I  could clarify a little bit. They won't give special accord  to the statements of the initiative sponsor, but they will  look at -- and I think it's those statements after the  ballot has been placed on the initiative. So maybe the  statements of intent that are argued before the court that  are post-election or post the initiative being placed on  the ballot will be not given special accord. But the court  will if those -- if the sponsor statements are part of the  public record of what a voter would have had access to  before the election, then those statements might be  considered by the court.  SENATOR BEGICH: To clarify, Mr. Chairman --  CHAIR STEVENS: Please, Senator Begich.  SENATOR BEGICH: The sponsors often write initiatives  for the election pamphlet statements. That's a sponsor  statement. That would not have the power of the public  statements made? That pamphlet goes to everybody in the  state. I'm confused by what you're describing as the  standard. I don't understand I think fully what you're  describing as the standard.  MS. WALLACE: Through the Chair, Senator Begich, the  court will look at statements that were made in favor of or  against the initiative at the time up to the time that the  initiative is placed on the ballot.  What I'm clarifying is more of a scenario where if a  certain provision is challenged and it's argued or  litigated in court, the court would maybe not give -- will  not give strong accord or weight to an argument  post-election that is made by the initiative sponsor.  SENATOR BEGICH: I understand.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. Please continue.  MS. WALLACE: So before preparing for today, Mr. Klein  and I kind of divvied up the workload. And I'm going to  run through just some general legal issues that our office  spotted with respect to our review of the initiative. And  if you have specific questions related to the language of  the initiative or some more of the details, Mr. Klein is  equipped to try to answer those questions.  The first legal issue that I wanted to discuss is that  there -- with respect to the ranked-choice voting for  general elections, it's our opinion that the ranked-choice  initiative does raise an issue under Article III, Section 3  of the Alaska Constitution with respect to the election of  the governor.  Article III, Section 3 states that "The governor shall  be chosen by the qualified voters of the state at the  general election. The candidate receiving the greatest  number of votes shall be governor."  There is a question in terms of whether the  ranked-choice voting process, which requires a majority of  the votes, is in conflict with the Alaska constitutional  provision that uses the language "the greatest number of  votes."  It has been our longstanding opinion of our office  that that language means a plurality. It's a question that  the Alaska Supreme Court has not addressed, and so it is an  open question.  But with respect to a scenario where a general  election were to occur and the first rounds of votes were  tallied and there was a plurality but not a majority, there  is a question as to whether using ranked-choice to get to a  majority of the votes cast is in conflict with the Alaska  constitutional provision.  Maine had -- which is the first state in the nation to  have ranked-choice voting -- passed an initiative I believe  in 2016 and established ranked-choice voting for all of its  general election positions. And the Maine Senate certified  a question to the Maine Supreme Court asking about the  constitutionality of some of the provisions in that  initiative.  And the decision that was rendered by the Maine  Supreme Court with respect to that question that was  certified to the Maine Senate was that Maine's  Constitution -- which does specifically use the word  "plurality" in their Constitution -- held that the  ranked-choice voting system with respect to the governor  and legislative races was in contradiction with the Maine  Constitution.  So it's my understanding, from the research that I've  done, that Maine has moved forward with ranked-choice  voting but with the exception of the race of the governor  and state legislative offices.  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Begich, you understand this  thoroughly. I know.  SENATOR BEGICH: I do. I'm sorry about this,  Mr. Chairman. In Maine, though, they challenged -- they  did take the ranked-choice challenge to the Supreme Court.  And, in fact, in the U.S. House race they contested that,  and, in fact, a member of -- a person who actually won  based on ranked-choice by getting a majority of the vote  was declared the winner after being challenged by the  person who initially led. That's actually what happened in  the U.S. House race there.  You're drawing the distinction between the governor's  race and the U.S. House race there. But the governor's  race wasn't contested that way. I mean, I have to -- it  was the U.S., meaning that the governor's race there wasn't  a dispute, but there was in the U.S. House race. And the  court in Maine ruled in favor of the candidate that  eventually triumphed through ranked-choice voting. Isn't  that right?  MS. WALLACE: Through the Chair, Senator Begich, I  don't have any reason to doubt -- I didn't really  specifically look at the U.S. House race in Maine, but I  did read the opinion of the justices, which was I think  before the challenge that you're speaking about.  And so it was, I think, a pre -- I don't know if it  was pre-enactment, but it was, I think, the Maine Senate or  the Maine Legislature was considering a repeal of certain  provisions of the ranked-choice and had a question about  constitutionality. And the opinion was specific to the  governor's race and the state legislative race.  And the issue that I'm raising here at this table with  respect to this initiative only applies to the governor's  race and the lieutenant governor's race, and there is not  similar language about state legislative races, unlike the  Constitution in Maine. So there are several distinctions.  SENATOR BEGICH: So, Mr. Chairman.  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Begich.  SENATOR BEGICH: I'm not trying to be either  supportive or in opposition to this initiative. I'm just  trying to make sure that we have the right information on  the table. So it was a 2016 -- 2017 decision that you're  talking about, and then a 2018 election was held. There  were more recent court decisions. And I would be -- it  would be useful I think for us to know -- maybe a short  memo just describing what the current state of the law in  Maine is, if we're going to use that as an example.  And then, secondarily, to be clear, you were pointing  out that we don't say the word "plurality" in our  Constitution. And, in fact, we have had a number of  governors elected with less than 40 percent of the vote in  this state or one at least elected with less than  40 percent and at least three elected with less than  50 percent of the vote in the state of Alaska. So we have  a tradition of not taking a majority vote as the standard  in the state of Alaska, as well. That would be correct,  right?  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator. Then we'll get to  Senator von Imhof and then Senator Giessel.  SENATOR VON IMHOF: So I don't know if you're the  person, Megan, to ask or if it's Cori, but I understand  that there is a lawsuit. It was taken to the superior  court. And I was curious if there's an appeal, is what I  understand, to the Alaska Supreme Court. Was part of the  original court case, including contradiction of Article  III, Section 3, on the candidate with the greatest number  of votes for governor? Was that part of the case?  MS. WALLACE: Through the Chair, Senator von Imhof,  no. The issue that is currently pending decision before  the Alaska Supreme Court is with respect to a single  subject argument. That is the sole question that is before  the Alaska Supreme Court now, because it would affect  certification and placement of that initiative on the  ballot.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator von Imhof.  SENATOR VON IMHOF: That's too bad.  CHAIR STEVENS: Comments. All right. Senator  Giessel.  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for  clarity, the state of Maine only applies ranked-choice  voting to its federal elections, and that was the  congressional issue that arose. The reelection of a  congressman in that election, he actually won the -- he  won -- there were four candidates. He won the most votes,  but then it automatically reverted to ranked-choice and  another person won or was declared the winner in that case.  Mr. Chairman, there are numerous states between 1912  and 1930 that implemented and then repealed ranked-choice  voting; those states being Florida, Indiana, Maryland,  Minnesota, and Wisconsin. North Carolina also used it  between 2006 and 2013 but repealed it. Thank you,  Mr. Chairman.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator. Senator Coghill.  SENATOR COGHILL: Which brings up an interesting  point: How to tell the public the difference between the  greatest number of votes cast for an individual and the  greatest number of votes counted for an individual. And I  think that -- that's what it really comes down to. And we  used to struggle with how to explain that. That's all.  And so as we move forward in this, hopefully the clouds  will clear on how we do that.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you.  SENATOR BEGICH: Can I ask --  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, Senator Begich.  SENATOR BEGICH: Just a question of whether an  analysis has been done by Leg. Legal. My party is the  minority party in the state of Alaska at present. It  hasn't always been, but it is at present. And I've been  curious as to whether or not Leg. Legal or anyone that  you're aware of has done any analysis to identify whether a  process that leads to ranked-choice voting, where you have  ranked-choice voting would lead to the permanent assignment  of my party into the minority. Is that -- any kind of  analysis been done, given that the state has generally in  both statewide elections and in -- if you add up the total  of House seats and Senate seats, and, you know, my party is  always in the 43rd or -4th percentile, but the other party  is always in the 48th to 49th percentile overall. Would  this permanently relegate my party to the minority status  in the state? Has that analysis been done, or do you know,  or does anybody know?  MR. KLEIN: I don't know --  CHAIR STEVENS: And identify for the record, please,  just --  MR. KLEIN: Excuse me. Noah Klein --  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you.  MR. KLEIN: -- Legislative Legal. Through the Chair,  Senator Begich, I don't know if that analysis has been  done. I have not conducted that analysis. And I'll leave  it at that.  MS. WALLACE: For the record, Megan Wallace. I will  echo Mr. Klein's comments. I'm not aware that we've done  any such analysis, but we're happy to look at the issue  upon request.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. No further questions.  Please continue.  MS. WALLACE: The only other comment that I'll make  with respect to the issue that's raised under Article III,  Section 3 is that the opinion with respect to the language  of the Alaska Constitution equating a plurality requirement  is in part of our analysis of the Constitutional Convention  history, and there were some comments and some debate over  that provision.  And there were specific statements that were made with  respect to requiring a majority of the votes cast to  require election of the governor. And that appears to have  been rejected explicitly by the Convention members.  And so, therefore, it's our opinion that the greatest  number of votes does equate to plurality, but it is an open  question. The Alaska Supreme Court has never considered it  and could be a question that is raised with respect to this  initiative.  Other legal issues that we've identified is the  elimination of party primaries, and the establishment of  open primaries could potentially raise an issue under  freedom of association rights of political parties. There  have been several U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have  considered a blanket primary.  Specifically with respect to California, California  Democratic Party vs. Jones, which was a 2000 U.S. Supreme  Court decision, it looked at and invalidated a blanket  primary in California.  About eight years later, the U.S. Supreme Court, in  Washington State Grange, considered an open primary,  similar to the one proposed in this initiative, and held  that it did not severely burden a party's associational  rights. I raise that just as a potential issue.  It's our opinion that because the initiative language  appears to be more comparable to the Washington state  language, that the likelihood that the U.S. Supreme Court  would find that it severely burdens the associational  rights is unlikely, but the Alaska Supreme Court has held  that the Alaska Constitution is more protective of  political parties' associational interests than the federal  Constitution. So it's difficult to predict how the Alaska  Supreme Court may weigh in on that issue if challenged.  And, finally, the disclosure requirements for the true  source or dark money political contributions have the  potential to raise a free speech issue under the First  Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I,  Section 5 of the Alaska Constitution.  And, again, it's difficult to predict how the Alaska  Supreme Court might rule on this issue. As folks are well  aware, you know, the Citizens United U.S. Supreme Court  case would be, you know, relevant to that discussion. But,  again, it's just an issue that we've identified and take no  opinion as to the likelihood of success of any of those  challenges.  CHAIR STEVENS: Senator Coghill.  SENATOR COGHILL: Just on that point, would the  sponsor's intent have any weight if the voters put this  into law, the intent in here is to challenge that U.S.  Supreme Court case basically. So does that intent carry  any weight with it when it comes to adjudication of this  particular issue?  MS. WALLACE: Through the Chair, Senator Coghill, when  the Alaska Supreme Court is weighing constitutional issues,  the sponsors' intent is not usually a relevant part of that  discussion. They generally look to the meaning -- the  plain meaning of the Constitution and, you know, past  precedent in evaluating whether or not the statute or law  before them presents any constitutional issues.  SENATOR COGHILL: Mr. Chairman, I would just think  that if people reading this are motivated by that  particular issue, that could be unfortunate that they think  what they're doing has weight, and it may very well not  have weight, just for what it's worth.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. Please continue.  MS. WALLACE: Those are generally the legal issues  that we flag. There may be other minor issues, or  certainly our testimony isn't to encompass every possible  legal challenge that might exist. But those are our  high-level comments on the initiative, and we're happy to  take any questions.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. Senator Begich.  SENATOR BEGICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This may  also be one for the director, but one of my staff  assistants has pointed out that under this process of the  ranked-choice voting, wouldn't the ranked-choice count have  to wait until the last absentee ballot was received because  you wouldn't know the actual count until then? Have you  given that consideration how that affects the absentee  ballot process? Because we receive ballots from overseas,  et cetera, for up to 15 days. And would that then be when  the clock begins to run for determining when you eliminate  the lowest candidate? I'm just curious if you've analyzed  that at all.  MS. WALLACE: Through the Chair, Senator Begich, we  have not analyzed that. I suspect that if the initiative  were to pass, that would be a question that the Division of  Elections is going to have to determine, you know, the  manner and way it's going to carry out at the elections and  counting the absentee ballots.  CHAIR STEVENS: Very good. And we're going to talk to  Ms. Fenumiai about that. Senator Coghill, did you have a  comment?  SENATOR COGHILL: Yes. So three new definitions in  here, new concepts in the reporting mechanisms with dark  money, true money, and out-of-state I think. I was just  looking for -- I think it's Section 17. Dark money is  Section 17; true source is Section 18; and outside-funded  entity is Section 19. Those are new concepts in law.  The question that we're going to have to come up with  is if they're new concepts and we are putting them before  people, how do we have a comparison between what is now and  what these new concepts are so they know the context in  which they're voting? Maybe that's not a question for you,  but that's a question that arises from me when we put a new  concept in law.  And so maybe the question would be then, when you're  putting a new concept in and taking old concepts out, is it  reasonable to expect the general population to be able to  read these statutes in that total?  I mean, I look at the repealer section. I'm looking  at these new concepts, and I'm thinking how in the world  are you going to get somebody to read these many sections  of law and get the concepts of these new reporting  mechanisms? You can put a general comment on there.  So with the new concepts, I'm just trying to get my  feet under me on how do I describe them outside of just  what a definition is? But the definition then is shot  through a whole section of law. So do we owe it to the  public to describe these new concepts as new concepts?  Maybe that's the best way of saying it.  MS. WALLACE: Through the Chair, Senator Coghill,  that's a difficult question. I'm not sure that they are  necessarily legal issues that arise. The issue that you're  describing is often an issue that comes up. It's similar  to the oil tax initiative. It's very complicated material  to describe to the voters, and I don't have any comment on  the best way to do that.  SENATOR COGHILL: Yes. I'm sorry to ask our legal  team that, but it's a question that plagues me on how do I  describe this to the general population? I'm just looking  for any help I can get on that. Sorry. Very important,  Megan.  CHAIR STEVENS: So I'm going to ask Senator Giessel to  speak in a moment. But we have a time issue because we  have to be on floor, Senate on the floor at 11:00, right?  So I want to make sure we have a chance to speak to the  Director of Division of Elections. Senator Giessel.  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Mr. Chairman, my question to Megan  has to do with the disenfranchisement of voters. So there  was a 2015 published study by two researchers on elections.  And they found, in examining four elections that used  ranked-choice voting, that anywhere from 9.7 to 27 percent  of the ballots were discarded through the ranked-choice  voting process. So this is very concerning to me. Take a  middle number there between 10 and 27 percent, maybe 15,  20 percent of Alaska ballots discarded, that would be  25,000 ballots discarded.  And my concern is, as I look at this initiative and  the instructions on page 66 -- which the Division of  Elections is supposed to explain to people, put in the  ballot. My concern is that the people that will be most  likely disfranchised will be the elderly -- who've always  voted the normal way and now are confused by this  ranked-choice voting -- and uninformed voters, people who  may have limited reading capabilities, but the fact is,  disenfranchising voters when we have a very low voter  turnout to begin with. Do you have any comments about  that?  MS. WALLACE: Through the Chair, Senator Giessel, you  raise another issue that could potentially be a subject of  challenge to the initiative if it were to become law. It  is not anything that this state has looked at or examined  before, and so it would be a case of first impression. I  don't have any specific comment of the way that the Alaska  Supreme Court is likely to come out on that, but it's  certainly another issue that may come up if this were to  become law and it's challenged.  PRESIDENT GIESSEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  CHAIR STEVENS: I understand. Thank you. So we're to  move on shortly here to the Director of Division of  Elections. Any further comments, concluding comments from  our attorneys?  MS. WALLACE: Thank you.  CHAIR STEVENS: Okay. Thank you very much. I  appreciate your time, Mr. Klein and Ms. Wallace. Would the  Director of the Division of Elections come forward, please,  Gail Fenumiai. Pleased to have you with us. Pleased to  have you back in the job.  MS. FENUMIAI: Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,  and members of the committee. Gail Fenumiai, Director of  the Division of Elections.  I was asked to give a brief summary of the statement  of cost for implementing this initiative. And the division  has expressed an estimated statement of cost of $800,593 to  implement this initiative. That includes the cost of --  that we incurred for processing the initiative, reviewing  those signatures that were submitted.  It also includes the cost of a voter education, which  would be required as a result of the initiative, that the  division would be responsible for educating voters. We  estimated that cost to be about $150,000.  There are requirements for this initiative to be  translated into multiple languages that we're required to  do according to the Toyukak settlement, as well as the  languages that are found under Section 203 of the Voting  Rights Act. That estimate is about $57,400.  The biggest chunk of this is, in order to do  ranked-choice voting, ballots have to have a digital image  captured. And in order to capture a digital image, all of  our hand-count precincts -- which total 137 -- would need  to be outfitted with an ImageCast Precinct Scanner, which  is our new equipment that we purchased.  And then following that, the images would then be  returned to the division and uploaded, and then the  ranked-choice voting process would start at the precinct  level. Again, we would have to wait until -- it is my  understanding that we would have to wait until the final  deadline for all ballots that are legally acceptable to be  received, reviewed, and counted before the absentee part of  this whole process could start.  It was not evident to the division, when we did this  estimate of cost, that there is software that is needed to  accommodate this process, and that is approximately  $350,000 in addition to what the division presented. We  were told that, yes, our new system can do this but didn't  dig deep enough to find out that there were additional  costs associated with that. So it's -- that is the  division's estimated cost.  And then the cost statement also has $103,000 in  estimated costs from the Alaska Public Offices Commission,  adding an Associate Attorney I position and some  programming hours that they would need to do for their  filing system.  CHAIR STEVENS: Do you have a total then for us?  MS. FENUMIAI: The total is $906,943 without the  additional $350,000 for the software, because without that  software, you can't do it.  CHAIR STEVENS: And the APOC figure, you're including  that as well?  MS. FENUMIAI: Pardon me?  CHAIR STEVENS: The APOC --  MS. FENUMIAI: APOC is included in that, yes.  CHAIR STEVENS: $960,000 plus $350,000 for software  potentially?  MS. FENUMIAI: Uh-huh.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. Senator Coghill.  SENATOR COGHILL: That was my question. It's about a  million two then?  MS. FENUMIAI: Approximately 1.2 million dollars, yes.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you very much for addressing  those issues. Do you have some general comments you care  to make before we go into questions.  MS. FENUMIAI: I don't at this time. It's definitely  a complex procedure, but if it's enacted, the division will  do the best they can to follow the laws of the state.  CHAIR STEVENS: Certainly. Then Senator von Imhof and  then Senator Begich.  SENATOR VON IMHOF: Thank you. So building upon  Senator Giessel's comments earlier, if a voter only votes  for one candidate and that candidate does not get the  majority of votes in the general election and then they  have it go through the re-scanning of the ballots to find  the next highest votes, does that particular ballot that  only has one vote, does that get discarded? What happens  to that ballot because they haven't ranked anybody for  whatever reason?  MS. FENUMIAI: Through the Chair, Senator von Imhof,  it's my understanding that if there are no additional  rankings on that ballot and that first-choice candidate did  not receive the majority of votes, then that ballot for  that specific race would no longer be included in any  future tabulations.  SENATOR VON IMHOF: So that voter generally -- follow  up, please?  CHAIR STEVENS: Yes, please.  SENATOR VON IMHOF: So that voter generally is no  longer represented in that race? That vote just no longer  counts?  MS. FENUMIAI: Through the Chair, Senator von Imhof,  their first vote would be the only vote that would count  for that ballot, yes.  SENATOR VON IMHOF: Thank you.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. Senator Begich, did you  have your hand up?  SENATOR BEGICH: Yes.  CHAIR STEVENS: And then we'll go to Senator Coghill.  SENATOR BEGICH: So a couple of questions. You  mentioned the 137 precincts that have to be hand-counted --  so just maybe a little more detail. I've got three  questions, Mr. Chairman, if I could.  CHAIR STEVENS: Please.  SENATOR BEGICH: How do you envision that process?  Perhaps a little bit more detail on how you would envision  that with the hand-count precincts. You're taking a  scanner -- which we're going to purchase -- you take a  photograph, and then how would that work?  MS. FENUMIAI: Through the Chair, Senator Begich, the  new ImageCast Precinct Scanners we purchased actually  capture a digital image of every ballot that goes through  the scanner. So the ballot image will be captured at the  time the ballot goes through the scanner.  And the proposal by the division would be instead of  those precincts hand-counting the ballots, they would  actually have a scanner where the ballots would be fed  through like they do in most of our urban precincts. And  the tally would be done by the scanner, and then the  digital images would then be sent to the division to be  used to further do the rest of the tabulations that would  be required by ranked-choice voting.  SENATOR BEGICH: Just to follow up on that question.  So we already have purchased these scanners; is that what  you're saying?  MS. FENUMIAI: Through the Chair, Senator Begich, we  purchased scanners in all but 137 precincts.  SENATOR BEGICH: Okay. My second question really kind  of looks at the system we use now for auditing our systems  and how we do that. And if this initiative became law, do  you have the capacity to do audits to ensure that the  system would be fair?  MS. FENUMIAI: Through the Chair, Senator Begich, we  will have to look at how all of our processes and  procedures are done, and the division has not done that at  this point in time. We do have a very good process in  place with our current system.  The law -- the initiative, as proposed, does require  that through each state of the tabulation process those  results are to be posted. And then those results would  then go through the same kind of certification process by  the state review board I would imagine post-election, post  all of the tabulation required by ranked-choice voting.  SENATOR BEGICH: And I think, Mr. Chairman, you just  answered the question that was asked earlier, which is are  the results posted as you're going through the tabulation  process? And you said the initiative does speak to that,  and it does do that?  MS. FENUMIAI: Through the Chair, Section 26 I believe  I did mention that each stage there has to be a certificate  provided for each stage of the tabulation process.  SENATOR BEGICH: And I say that, Mr. Chairman, because  that was a question Senator von Imhof had brought up, and I  did not know the answer to that.  And then my last question is, you know, we still have  provisions in state law. I don't know if it's one of the  ones that was repealed -- that would be repealed under this  initiative for hand-recounts if -- if we have a situation  where the difference or the margin is within .5 percent.  So how would we account for recounts under -- if this  initiative became law?  MS. FENUMIAI: Through the Chair, Senator Begich, Are  you referring to the hand-count verification process that  takes place following the election or actual recount?  SENATOR BEGICH: I'm actually referring to both  processes, and I'm trying to jam them into one question so  I can get away with three questions. But it's both the  point -- we have the automatic recount process, but we also  have the hand tabulation to check. So how would we do  those?  MS. FENUMIAI: Through the Chair, Senator Begich, it's  my assumption that the hand-count verification process  would continue in the same manner, and it would take a  significantly longer period of time because the initial  count for all first-choice ballots would have to be done,  and then the second-choice ballots would have to be then  sorted and tabulated, and it would take a very long period  of time.  SENATOR BEGICH: Mr. Chairman, this actually brings  one follow-up question, if I may?  CHAIR STEVENS: Please continue, Senator Begich.  SENATOR BEGICH: And that would mean do we have to  then look at -- would we have to, if this initiative  passed, look at changing our date for certifying an  election to ensure that a sufficient amount of time is  available?  MS. FENUMIAI: Through the Chair, Senator Begich, the  division would need to look into that in further detail.  The hand-count verification process takes place at the same  time the complete election certification process is taking  place.  As far as a recount -- you also mentioned a regular  recount -- it's my assumption that a recount would take  place in the same manner. All the ballots would be  re-tabulated, and then the ranked-choice voting tabulations  would happen again as part of that recount process.  SENATOR BEGICH: But that process couldn't begin until  after the last absentee ballot was received? You couldn't  even begin that process?  MS. FENUMIAI: Through the Chair, correct. I do not  have an estimation as to how long the whole tabulation  process takes to get through all the ranked-choice votings.  SENATOR BEGICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Senator Begich. Senator  Coghill and then the Senator von Imhof.  SENATOR COGHILL: He got most of my question. Then  it's just a matter of we have under this law, should it  pass, your chain of custody would be fairly clear? You're  going to have an electronic transmission, but you can  verify that with the actual ballots?  MS. FENUMIAI: Through the Chair, Senator Coghill,  that's correct. We have not changed the use of paper  ballots in the state of Alaska.  SENATOR COGHILL: All right. Thank you.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. Senator von Imhof.  SENATOR VON IMHOF: So you just made the comment  "significant longer period of time." And I'm very  concerned about that because if there's going to need at  each stage completion of the ballot count, a certificate,  what if there's going to be a challenge? Then there's  going to need to be an audit, and then we have to wait for  each stage. And so if it goes through two or three  processes, this could take weeks, if not months.  MS. FENUMIAI: Through the Chair, Senator von Imhof,  it's my assumptions -- and, again, these are all just  assumptions because we have not dug deep into the weeds on  how this would actually be implemented. But it's my  assumption those pre-calculations of the ranked-choice  voting are all part of the unofficial results, and then the  certification of that results happens when the state review  board convenes approximately 15 days following the  election. They start working on the precinct materials.  So it's my assumption we could start the ranked-choice  voting tabulation at the precinct level and then go into  absentee districts once all the final ballots have been  received.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you. Yes, further comments?  Senator von Imhof.  SENATOR VON IMHOF: How I read Section 26 is that you  complete the ballot count and there must be a certificate.  Then if there is going to be then information disseminated  to the public after each stage, then I would think that  there needs to be an allowance of a challenge after each  stage, each certificate, each trial run of the ballots  again if there is continually no majority winner. And so  if it's just bam, bam, bam, bam, here's the end, here's the  end, where is there a point that someone can say, "Wait,  wait, wait, I don't like how you did that second or third  count"?  MS. FENUMIAI: Through the Chair, Senator von Imhof,  currently the challenges happen post-election  certification, and then a challenge is requested of the  division to conduct a recount. All results are considered  unofficial until the state review board goes through and  does their certification of the election. So I just don't  have a good answer for you at this point in time.  CHAIR STEVENS: Thank you, Director Fenumiai. I  appreciate your knowledge and your experience. Thanks for  being with us. I have an announcement that I need to make  before we adjourn. We're forming an emergency response  preparedness subcommittee appointing the following members:  Myself, Stevens, Chair; Senate President Giessel; Speaker  Edgmon; Senator Coghill; Representative Kopp; Senator  Begich; Representative Pruitt. And the subcommittee will  be meeting in the very near future, and I'll be sure to  keep the council informed of what happens.      III. ADJOURN    CHAIR STEVENS said if there is nothing further to come  before the Council, we are adjourned.    10:50:49 AM