Alaska Legislature: Ballot Measure 2 Hearing, 8/5/26, 2pm

Good afternoon. This is, um, I am Lieutenant Governor Nancy Dahlstrom. With me today is Carol Beecher, who's the Director of the Division of Elections, and Tatiana Robbins, who's my chief of staff, and April Simpson, for those of you in the room, she's the coordinator of the ballot initiatives. I'd like to call this public hearing to order. Today is Wednesday, August 5th, 2026.

The purpose of this hearing is to hear from the primary sponsor and group opposing Citizen Initiative 24, ESEG. This public hearing is required under a law passed by the Alaska State Legislature in 2010. I will read the ballot summary now. The title is an Act Restoring Political Party Primaries, Ending Ranked Choice General Elections, and Repealing Recent Campaign Finance Laws. This act would get rid of open primary elections where all candidates appear on one ballot.

It would also get rid of ranked choice general elections. It would bring back political party primaries and single-choice general elections. It would also repeal certain campaign finance rules that were added by a 2020 ballot measure. Elections would occur as they did before open primaries and ranked choice voting. In the primary election, voters would choose a party's ballot unless prohibited by the party's bylaws.

They would only vote for candidates on that ballot. The winning candidate from each primary would be the party's nominee. In the general election, voters would vote for only one candidate in each race. The candidate with the most votes would win. Party petitions, special runoff elections, and other processes would return.

This act would also repeal campaign finance rules that that were passed in 2020. It would remove the limits on donations to joint campaigns for governor and lieutenant governor. It would remove limit and— excuse me, it would remove limits and disclosure rules under current law, including for digital ads, out-of-state donations, undisclosed donations, and the true source of donations. It would change the meaning of a campaign expenditure and remove some fines. Should this initiative become law is the question.

This initiative is set to appear on the ballot for the upcoming November 3rd, 2026 general election. Today we will be hearing from the initiative sponsor, and we will also provide the opportunity for a group opposing the measure to provide testimony. And we will then open the hearing to public testimony. I would like to note that an initiative is different than legislation that is brought through the public process in the legislature. The initiative that you will be hearing about today will be on the general election ballot this November as is.

Unlike legislation that is debated in the legislature, this initiative cannot be amended or altered. Additional information pertaining to this initiative, such as the proposed bill, the ballot summary, and the cost estimate, can be found in the attachment section of the public notice as well as on the Division of Elections website. The process today will be as follows: we will have a statement of support from the sponsor of the initiative, then we will have a statement of opposition, and then we will open the hearing for public testimony. So we will now begin with the sponsor of the initiative. If they would please come forward, identify themselves for the record, and the floor is yours.

And I would just like to state one other thing. I would like to— those that are talking for and against the initiative have their 10 minutes they can take. Everybody else, I would like public testimony. If we can keep it at about 3 minutes, give or take a little bit. I want to be flexible and lenient.

If you're in the middle of a sentence or paragraph, no problem at all, you know, as long as I know that you're kind of wrapping it up. In that way, we can make sure that everybody has an opportunity to be heard. But there you go. Thank you. Thank you, Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom.

My name is Bethany Markham, M-A-R-C-U-M. Okay, thank you for inviting us to present on behalf of the campaign to end ranked choice voting. Yes on 2. Our intent with this ballot measure is a complete and full repeal of the 2020 ballot measure that was a three-part poisonous cocktail for Alaska's elections. We intend to undo every single word of that ballot measure.

So there's three parts. There is repealing ranked choice voting. There is restoring primary elections that are open to undeclared independent voters that are not affiliated with a political party, and there's a return to our pre-2020 campaign finance laws. So the first one is repealing ranked choice voting. So why repeal ranked choice voting?

Well, we have heard dozens and dozens of concerns from voters, and so we will cover just a few here today.

One of the most common concerns that we hear is what's called exhausted ballots. These are ballots that either at the beginning or at some point during the process are no longer counted. They're trashed. They, they end up not counting, and that's a big concern for voters. So several different reasons why this can happen.

A voter can intentionally choose not to fill in a bubble because they just can't stomach voting for a candidate that they don't like, or they can unintentionally skip over a bubble, or they can unintentionally miss a line. As you can see on this slide here. This is a real ballot from the presidential election in 2024. Over 60 different buzz bubbles just for this one election, this, this one particular race. So a voter could very easily, and they have, intentionally missed lines or bubbles, and that can cause their ballot to be exhausted.

What we've done in this case is make voting unnecessarily complex, and as a result, there is voter fatigue and confusion.

We believe in one person, one vote, because this has been a bedrock principle for the American Republic for 250 years. But ranked choice voting electronically tabulates multiple rounds, and with each round, it's a new vote. So that means many votes for many different— I'm sorry, many— one vote for many— I'm sorry, one voter, many votes. One voter, many votes contrasts with one person, one vote. Many voters feel this is not fair and they do not like it.

They're concerned. Voters also tell us that they don't feel that ranked choice election results are representative of the will of voters. So there are many examples of this from all over the country. One example, for example, is in the city of Portland, Maine. So there was a race where in the first round of voting, a particular candidate had only 4% of the vote, but that candidate ended up winning the race.

So yes, that is certainly an example of a case where the eventual winner was not representative of the will of most voters. And we have this in Alaska too, where people feel like the results are not representative of the will of most voters. You can see here on this slide that in 2022, there was an election where nearly 15,000 ballots were exhausted. Yet the winner only prevailed by a little over 5,000 votes. 15,000 Votes thrown out, 5,000 vote win.

Obviously, this makes voters not trust the system. Two more issues. Alaska election results have always been slower to come in, and we understand that, slower than other states. But ranked choice voting has really amplified and extended this, and voters are understandably not happy about that. Voters also don't trust turning elections over to a complex computer algorithm.

It's one thing to just let the system determine who has the most votes, but ranked choice voting is notoriously complex, and so voters distrust letting a complex algorithm run things.

Voters understand that there is a reason ranked choice voting has been banned in 19 states. And our voters want Alaska to join that list.

So looking at ranked choice voting, it simply fails to deliver. There were many promises made to us in 2020 about ranked choice voting, uh, but all of those have failed, and instead it's created a litany of problems and voter concerns.

Now let's take a look at primary elections. A yes on 2 vote returns Alaska to primary elections that are open to undeclared voters. That is voters who have not declared a political party affiliation, independent voters, voters, voters that are not associated with a political party. It returns Alaska to that sort of primary election. And it's simply false to say that this repeal will result in closed primaries.

In fact, the Supreme Court of the United States, not the Alaska Supreme Court, but the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear in 2000 that a closed primary is one in which only a political party's members can vote on its nominees. That is not what Alaska had before the original Ballot Measure 2 passed. If we repeal, 100% of Alaska voters will still be able to vote in Alaska primaries.

In 2024, there was an important study by the Bipartisan Policy Center that looked at all states' primary systems, and it categorized those. And it looked historically, it looked way back in time to categorize those primary systems. And it categorized Alaska's previous primary system before the jungle primary that we have now. It categorized that as open, open to unaffiliated voters, open to voters that do not have a political party. And after repeal, that's what we will go back to.

So let's look a little deeper.

No On2— for some reason, that stuff is not showing on the slide. I'm not sure why. It's on the PDF, but we had this problem last week too. Oh well. OK, so you'll just have to listen to my voice.

I apologize. I know it's not nearly attractive as beautiful slides. So let's look a little bit deeper. So No On2's primary funder is an outfit out of Colorado called Unite America. They're a PAC out of Colorado.

And in addition to Unite America funding the No On 2 campaign here in Alaska, our opposition, they also funded the exact same study that I just mentioned. Well, remember that study indicated that after repeal, Alaska will go back to open primaries, right? Well, Unite America is now funding ads that, yes, that No On 2 is running that say primaries will be closed. Right. So their own study says that if we repeal, Alaska's primaries will be open.

But the ads they are funding say that Alaska's primaries will be closed. I would say that is someone talking out of both sides of their mouth.

So here are the receipts. This is the actual acknowledgment directly from the study itself. Read it and weep. They really must think Alaskans are dumb.

Third component, dark money. Well, our opponent's hypocrisy about this is truly unmatched. They campaigned with millions of dollars in dark money in 2020, telling us, and I'm going to quote here directly from their own campaign literature, "Ballot Measure 2 eliminates dark money." It's what they told us in 2020. Well, in case you haven't noticed, the dark money still flows. Um, again, apologize, not sure why the slide is not rendering.

Um, ranked choice supporters have spent $24 million in dark money, and it is what brought us ranked choice voting, and it's what's protecting dark— ranked choice voting now. Dark money is ranked choice voting. So if you want to talk about real dark money in this election, um, we have an example for you on this next slide, which apparently is not going to render either. So you'll have to, again, listen to my explanation. So in the bottom box there, I want you to think about in 2020, if you remember, the main group that brought us ranked choice voting was Alaskans for Better Elections.

Does that sound familiar to anyone? ABE, Alaskans for Better Elections. They brought us ranked choice voting in 2020. So next box above that, the ABE, the Alaska for Better Elections Foundation, received $10,000 from an Arabella-managed organization. Yes, that is the same Arabella network that is funded from George Soros Foundations.

That's what's in the top box— George Soros. All right, so that is, that is the real dark money in this election. And because Alaska for Better Elections Foundation is a 501 nonprofit, it's not a political organization, most of the dollars that they take are untraceable. So that makes us all have to wonder, how much more did they take that is untraceable?

No On2 claims to oppose dark money, but No On2 has spent tens of millions in dark money. No On2 uses nonprofits like C3s and C4s to hide donors they don't want to disclose, likely George Soros, based upon some of their other grants.

As we come to the end of this presentation, I want to say a couple of words. Our opposition will soon be trotting out their token veterans to tell you this repeal will harm our military members. Well, unlike them, I didn't brag about it in my last presentation last week, but I'll tell you now that as a veteran who retired with 23 years of military service, that is simply a lie. I'll also counter the lie that they're going to tell you about this repeal being partisan. Mr. Kendall loves to say that ranked choice voting is a Republican Party policy.

Well, what I can state unequivocally after managing the collection of 48,000— over 48,000 signatures from Alaskans is that repealing this monstrosity is nonpartisan. Our petition had signatures from Alaska voters of every single political party, as well as many, many thousands of independent and undeclared voters who do not like ranked choice voting. This repeal is simply about bringing back simple, fair elections for all Alaskans. And so we encourage all Alaskans to vote yes to end the mess of ranked choice voting on November 3rd. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

We will now invite Scott Kendall to come to the stand and Please identify yourself and the floor is yours.

Yes. Scott Kendall for No On 2 Protect Alaska's Elections. It's good to see you again, Lieutenant Governor and Director Beecher. Thank you for the time today.

You know, again, I want to start off with the idea that ranked choice voting, again, was not an outside idea sprung upon Alaska. For the first time in 2020. It was in fact brought forward by basically every political party except for the Democratic Party back in 2002 via ballot measure. And you can see here the statement of support. And I would read an excerpt of that, which is, "Ranked choice voting is good government at its best.

It will elect candidates with the support of a majority and who are more likely to listen to all Alaskans. We will regain the greater choice we had with the blanket primary." and we can save tax dollars. Again, that was a position of the Libertarian Party, Independent Party, Green Party, Republican Moderates, and Republican Party of Alaska, and it is as true today as it was when they wrote it in 2002. Briefly touching on some of the claims made regarding ranked choice voting, despite the photo of a trash can, no ballot in ranked choice voting in Alaska has ever been trashed. I trust our Division of Elections to handle ballots properly.

And in fact, when a voter declines to continue ranking their ballot, their ballot is treated exactly the same way as someone who voted for a third-place candidate was under the old system. It is tabulated, it is counted, it simply does not impact the final result between the top two candidates. In addition, there has been no evidence of widespread confusion. In fact, we have had and continue to have very, very low spoilage rates of our ballots. And once again, the principle of one person, one vote is obeyed in this system.

It is a single transferable vote, and every court in the land that has looked at ranked choice voting has concluded that. Saying something— saying that the system gives a voter multiple votes doesn't make it so.

Every irregularity cited by the Yes on 2 team comes from outside, and that's for a reason. Alaska does it better, and we have handled the transition to this system very, very well. A lot of credit goes to the Lieutenant Governor's office and both Director Funumiai and Director Beecher for doing such a great job. And once again, a final point, the delay in results in Alaska once again has nothing to do with RCV. It is something we have struggled with historically because of— we have record overseas voting rates and we have a slow mail system.

The tabulation process itself is nearly instantaneous. That remains true. Moving forward, there are— in addition to the ranked choice voting, which is clearly the focus of the Yes on 2 team, the measure, their measure, despite saying that it does one single thing, and that's repeals a prior ballot measure, that's simply not true. It makes two other very deliberate ballot, or two very deliberate policy choices. When someone drafts a ballot measure, They don't have to start off someone else's work.

They don't have to imitate or repeal something else in its entirety. They start with a blank sheet of paper. And on that blank sheet of paper, the sponsors of, of Ballot Measure 2 chose to do two additional things. They chose to close our primaries, and they chose to repeal our ban on dark money.

And as you can see here, and this is again the Department of Law's own memo, It says repealing the ban on dark money is exactly what Measure 2 would do. It does a lot of other things too. It removes the requirement that we have paid-for-by disclaimers on ads for the duration so we know who's spending. It repeals the requirement that an entity that gets most of its funding from outside the state disclose that fact on its ads. It repeals again the dark money ban, and it lifts or reduces fines for those who lie about the source of their campaign funds.

Those are all policy choices. Those are all very deliberate choices, section by section, that they have chosen to make.

And once again, the Yes on 2 team has said it will return us to open to undeclared primaries. That is not true except in the most base sense. It will return to party primaries that by default are open to undeclareds. But as you can see from this section, a simple notice to the director that they have changed their bylaws to exclude undeclared and nonpartisan voters, by that simple stroke, either major party can make it unlawful. And again, I will say that again, unlawful for nonpartisan and undeclared voters to vote in primary elections.

Repeating, simply repeating over and over again that the primaries will remain open does not make it true. Those highlighted words are from their ballot measure. They drafted those words, and those words give each party the unilateral power to prevent nonpartisan, undeclared voters— again, two-thirds of Alaska's voters— from voting in primary elections, which are publicly funded.

Pardon me.

One other thing to remember is, maybe perhaps some folks would say, "Well, we'll clean that up. You know, getting rid of ranked choice voting is so important. We'll go back and we'll clean that up." The problem there is ballot measures are protected constitutionally for 2 years. So no matter what happens, if Ballot Measure 2 were to pass, we will have no ban on dark money in Alaska for 2 years. We will have the possibility of absolutely closed primary elections for 2 years.

And there's nothing we can do about it as voters, and there's nothing the legislature could do do about it. Now, the irony here is we hear a lot of complaints about the sources of funding, um, certainly for our side, and, and certainly the other side has their own billionaires as well. A single billionaire has provided over half of their funding, which is substantial. The irony here is that without the very law they're trying to repeal, they wouldn't know those people exist. I believe, um, taking them at face value, I believe the supporters of Ballot Measure 2 are confused about the difference between outside money and dark money.

Outside money quite— is quite simply that. It comes from outside, and under the U.S. Supreme Court's cases, there's nothing we can do about outside money coming into our state. Dark money is money that, wherever it comes from, you don't know where it came from. Again, there are complaints raised about the sources of funding for both sides are only possible because of those strong laws we have in place that require the disclosure. Now what we do know about, um, Repeal Now's funding is that one of their top 3 donors, whose name you actually saw at the end of their slide presentation, was accused of Medicaid fraud.

Um, we also know that the source of over half their funding is an outside billionaire from Pennsylvania. Why would someone from Pennsylvania, who for all we know has never even been to Alaska, care whether dark money is disclosed in Alaska? I think that's a question voters should ask.

I want to end here with just sort of a statement that the way they continue to present it, Ballot Measure 2 is a Trojan horse. They talk about RCV. I think, quite candidly, a lot of the ways they talk about RCV is misinformation, but they talk almost exclusively about RCV. I challenge anyone in this room and anyone listening online to look through their websites and social media and find a single mention of closing primaries, a single mention of repealing the dark money ban. It will simply talk again and again about ranked choice voting.

But they try to hide the policy choice they made, and the two other changes, if anything, are bigger and more significant. So we would ask, don't fall for the Trojan horse. Remember that inside that package is both closed primaries and a repeal on the dark money ban. We'd ask voters to protect their right to vote in every election, including primary elections, and to protect their right to know who is spending money in Alaska's elections by voting no on 2. Thank you.

Thank you for that testimony. We will now open the hearing up to take public testimony, and we have a list of people online and we have list of people who are in the room.

Because both lists are not short, I think what we'll do is take a good half dozen or so in the room and then we'll switch to online and we'll go back and forth so people don't, you know, have to wait extensively either here or online. So in the room in person, we have a Laurie Capelle. Am I pronouncing that correct? Please come to the microphone, identify yourself, and the floor is yours.

Thank you, Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom and Director Beecher. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Laura Capelle, and I am proud to serve as president of NEA Alaska, representing thousands of public educators across our great state. On behalf of our members, I'm here today to urge Alaskans to vote no on Ballot Measure 2. At NEA Alaska, our focus is on what best serves Alaska's students, families, and communities.

To deliver the strong public schools our children deserve, we need policymakers in our legislature who work together, listen to their local communities, and stay accountable to the people who actually live and raise their families here. Ballot Measure 2 threatens the values and priorities we have to foster open, productive communication, uphold transparency in elections, and let every Alaskan vote their conscience. Ballot Measure 2 would strip away Alaska's tough campaign finance transparency laws. Right now, Alaska leads the nation in holding dark money accountable by requiring full disclosure of the true source of election spending over $2,000. Ballot Measure 2 would open the floodgates to out-of-state mega-wealthy donors with their own personal or political agendas, allowing them to flood our local elections with secret, untraceable cash.

Outside billionaires shouldn't be allowed to secretly buy or wield an outside influence on— over Alaska's elections, or to be able to dictate the future of our communities and especially our schools. When dark money takes over, politicians answer to out-of-state donors instead of tried and true Alaskan parents and educators. Ballot Measure 2 would take away our open primaries, pulling us back to a closed primary ballot system that Alaskans have rejected because it locks out more than 60% of voters who are not registered with a political party. Over 40% of Alaskans vote for candidates of different or no political parties because of the values they support and the issues that they will champion. Issues like public safety and public education.

Not rigid party labels. Open primaries allow politicians to appeal to all voters, encouraging collaboration, reducing partisan gridlock, and leading to more efficient legislative, legislative sessions focused on real solutions for Alaska. Finally, our general election process ensures that elected officials represent a broad consensus of their constituents by requiring candidates to earn a true majority of support to win. This prevents candidates from taking office with only a narrow fraction of the vote, holding leaders accountable to the full community they serve rather than a minority of voters. Our students and families thrive when our leaders are accountable, transparent, and focused on working across the aisle for Alaska.

Please stand with Alaska educators and vote no on Ballot Measure 2. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony, Laura. Next is Brian Schroeder.

Identify yourself, please, and the floor is yours. Yes, ma'am. I'm Brian Schroeder. I spoke last week, so I won't go through my background. Thank you, Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom and Director Beecher, for the opportunity to testify.

For the first time in my life, I think I was just referred to as a token. But I'm not here to talk about veterans this week. I want to talk about a different issue. As we all know, Ballot Measure 2 seeks to revoke all aspects of Alaska's voting system. It would send us back to the days of dark money and party primaries where Alaskans would be limited on who they could vote for.

But I want to briefly discuss a term we heard in the last round of testimony, which was— and just today, too— exhausted ballots. And I want to talk about the misconception of that term.

Especially when you start using the terms like trashed, which is, I think, completely inappropriate and a complete misconception. And, and Mr. Kendall talked about that, and I won't go over the same thing, but what I wanted to point— I wanted to make is that choosing not to bubble in a candidate on the ballot is in fact just that, a choice. We are allowed to decide we don't want to support a candidate. We may be willing to bubble in 1, 2, or 3 candidates, but we don't have to support all of them. And the Division of Elections processes those ballots appropriately in every case.

They are not trashed. Um, 2 years ago when I was involved in the, the repeal at that time, and I was involved in kind of the talking to the public about the system, a common question I got was whether ranking all candidates was required. And it often came from someone, a voter who really didn't care for one of the candidates, or maybe more than one of the candidates. And I was able to explain that RCV did not require it for them to vote for anyone who they didn't feel deserved their vote. They could rank as many candidates as they wanted, leave out the one they, they, they didn't want to vote for, and their votes would still count.

And I obviously believe that to be true. And I think that is the truth of the matter. Alaskans should always be represented by a candidate who received a majority of the vote. And ranked choice voting is the method where we can guarantee majority rule, not plurality rule. Contrary to the claims you've heard last week, Alaskans are smart.

And have successfully used this system, including ranked choice voting. Now, in two elections, we can do this and we have done this. I will be voting no on Ballot Measure 2 to protect Alaskans' election system. Thank you. Thank you, Brian, for your testimony.

Next is Sophie Weiser.

Please identify yourself and the floor is yours.

Hello, uh, my name is Sophie Weiser. I'm testifying on behalf of myself. I'm here to urge Alaskans to vote no on Ballot Measure 2 in November. I'm a third-generation Alaskan. When the reform was passed, I was in college and studying political science.

I was so proud to be from a state that took the steps to better representation, and I have now voted more times under the current system than than I had the previous one. Open nonpartisan primaries allow Alaskans to exercise their vote in the best way that they see fit. I've never wanted to register with a political party, and I doubt I ever will. More and more, this is the case, and I'm not alone in this conviction. 63% Of Alaskans choose not to register with a political party.

When I hear about or talk to a candidate, I rarely look at their registered party. Instead, I look at the way that they can connect with voters, their political or professional history, and the stances that they have taken. I frequently vote for a Republican in one race and a Democrat in another, and I believe voters deserve the ability to vote for whoever they want regardless of party. I also believe a candidate should earn support from a majority of constituents to win, and ranked choice voting allows us to do that and avoid the expenses and lower turnout of another election. Making sure a winner is supported by more than half of Alaskans is inherently a good thing.

It makes elected officials more accountable to the people they are supposed to represent and serve, and has resulted in Alaska being the only state to have cross-partisan coalitions in both chambers of the legislature. My whole life I've heard the same things about Alaskans— that we're independent, stubborn, and do things our own way. Why would our elections be excluded from this? I urge a no vote on Ballot Measure 2 to protect open primaries and ranked choice voting. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony, Sophie. Next is Ruth Hall.

Please identify yourself and the floor is yours. Hello, my name is Ruth Hall. I'm testifying on behalf of myself today. Over the past few weeks, I spent a lot of time tabling at events talking to people about Ballot Measure 2. And the conversations I've had with people have been really telling.

When I let people know that there's a measure on the ballot this November that will fundamentally change our campaign finance law, letting undisclosed dark money back into our elections, they are shocked. I tell them, right now, if you spend money in politics in Alaska, more than $2,000, you have to say who you are and where you're from. That's because you and me, all of us, have a right to know who is trying to influence our elections and earn our votes. The voters agree with that idea. If spenders want to donate money in Alaska, they have to say who they are.

And if campaigns want to use that money, they have to say where they got it from. But Ballot Measure 2 would change that. It would take those rules away. Ballot Measure 2 tells Alaskans, you don't need to know who's trying to spend money in our elections. You don't need to know who's trying to curry favor with your elected official or trying to earn influence with your, uh, candidate of of choice.

And that's not okay. It's not okay with me. It's not okay with any of the Alaskans I've been speaking to these past few weeks. This November, we'll have a big question in front of us again. And that question is, what kind of election system do we want in Alaska?

Do we want an election system that's lower 48 business as usual politics where party insiders and special interests have bigger voices than you and me? Um, do we want an election system where billionaires like Jeff Yass can spend as much money as they want, millions and millions, in complete secrecy? No, Alaskans don't want that. I certainly don't. Um, so I hope you'll join me in voting no on Ballot Measure 2 this November.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony, Ruth. Next is Ken McCarty.

Please identify yourself and the floor is yours.

Thanks. I'm Ken McCarty and I'm one of the sponsors of Ballot Measure 2. So I want to bring up a couple things. One is Benjamin Franklin, a long time ago, when coming out of the decision of our country and the Constitution stuff that was asked when he stepped out of the Independence Hall, what do we have? And he says, you have a republic if you could keep it.

And it's not just a statement of a republic, it's like you have the privilege to vote and your voices are definitely heard rather than having a monarchy. And that's what the repeal of Ballot Measure 2 is all about. So go back to the ability to have our voices heard in that clear voice of one vote, one voice, one vote type thing. Now I want to bring up a couple things here. That it's my understanding that only 18% of people are doing a ranking.

Most of the people are so confused by this process that they just want to do one vote, and that vote process starts in the first round. So I hear as I go around the state, people say, "Well, this allows for the majority to speak, 50% plus 1." But if most people, the majority, are ranking in the first round and not the second, third, and such, then really the majority is in the first round. And this ranked choice voting system really is erroneous. So the 50% plus 1 should be decided in the first round, which means we need to go back to what we had before. For 2020.

As I go around the state too, that I have talked to so many people in the last time of 2 years ago when trying to get rid of ranked choice voting, that a lot of people are confused that they were saying vote no to get rid of it when the answer was yes. And so the answer to this is yes to repeal, or yes to get rid of. Ranked choice. So I think that we're going to hear a lot of people now— there's clarity, and that's what the voting is about, is to have clarity in the process. There's been people that have presented saying that this is getting rid of dark money.

Well, we have a system called APOC, and the APOC was developed because there were people many decades ago that were doing wrongful things, and the state of Alaska has set this institution in place which makes maybe some legislators or process tremble when they hear the word APOC, but yet that's what it's about. It's supposed to be looking at any type of dark money to make it known to the public.

The question of parties. The whole purpose of a party is to be able to say, here's a position statement that this group of people believe in. If they believe in pumpkins and they know that if you are part of that party that you are a believer of pumpkins. Just as an example there. And so the party is vetting people in that process to know that as that person represents in that party, that they're saying, I'm vetted to be recognized, that I believe in this case pumpkins, right?

Ranked choice voting has eliminated the whole vetting process, and there's people that are signing up and putting a letter behind their name that are not part of that party. They're not part of that vetting process there. But we are saying, if you're the party cannot say anything, that they're gagged. And so that's not part of what was established by Ben Franklin and many others, to be able to say, here's this free speech and the ability to vote effectively. And so by removing what we have now, going back to the system that we had before, is, uh, I think the choice we need to do.

So I encourage people to vote yes to repeal ranked choice voting. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your testimony, Ken. Next is Claire Stephens.

Welcome, Claire. Please state your name and the floor is yours. Hi. Yes, it's Claire Stephens and I represent myself and thank you for having this hearing. You're welcome.

I'm going to start with my last statement, which is once we get rid of ranked choice voting and return to traditional voting system, we can pass legislation to fix any problems that might arise. And I noted I did vote already, and I noticed that on this ballot there is exactly a provision for limiting contributions to individual— from individuals and groups. So this outside money, dark money issue is already being addressed. But as you can tell, I'm in favor of repealing ranked-choice voting because it is an untrustworthy system which we have tried out with dismal results. The goals and the— the ideals of ranked choice voting are, are not borne out in fruit, and we just can't seem to get rid of it because people get confused.

It's an untrustworthy system because of chaos, confusion, and corruption. Chaos because it invites people to be candidates who have no expectation of actually holding office. This makes a mockery of public service while serving egoism and the social disruption. For instance, there are 15 candidates for U.S. House, 15— 16 candidates for U.S. Senate, 17 for governor, and 17 for lieutenant governor. But only 2 or 3 of these candidates in each category have actively campaigned or tried to win the votes of others, other voters.

Okay, confusion. Voters have neither time nor ability to research and inform themselves about each candidate to choose their best candidate. Political party primaries educate voters and make candidates available to the voters to be discussed with and, and approached. People who seek public office can be candidates even if not affiliated with a political party, if they have public support. But you can't— they just— 15 candidates, most of them don't really expect to win and they don't campaign.

Corruption.

Corruption. Ranked choice voting has brought corruption to the state of Alaska in a way— and I've been here 50 years and I have never seen such horrible results. Dark money and millions of dollars of outside PACs, they swamp one or two candidates with their money. And they buy up all the media time. They overwhelm voters with lopsided and questionable claims which are posed as facts.

They use subtle psychology to confuse and sway voters. And they've brought negative campaigning to this state like you have never seen before. We used to be a get-along kind of state, and you could talk to your neighbor. But with this ranked choice voting, it's pitted us against each other. The corruption continues with games.

Ranked choice voting supports playing games that corrupt and confuse, like having an unknown Kelly brought in at the last minute to compete with candidate Kelly running for the U.S. Senate from Eagle River area. Having Dan J. Sullivan Jr., a resident of Sitka with no political experience or no interest in politics, brought in to confuse voters with the Dan S. Sullivan candidate for U.S. Senate. Games like having Dan J. Sullivan stating he has not communicated with the Petola campaign, but artfully not stating that he has not communicated with candidate Petola herself. These kind of— You're at 5 minutes. Can I get you to wrap up?

One more sentence I have. Thank you. Games like packing the ballot with people who would not campaign but would dilute the percentage of vote received by serious candidates, all of these things I mean, we need to go back to traditional voting and get rid of this ranked choice voting. And thank you for letting me tell you folks and everybody who's listening. Thank you for your testimony.

Next up is Carolyn Overstreet.

Please identify yourself, Carolyn, and the floor is yours. My name is Carolyn Overstreet and I represent myself.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak in front of this committee today. I'm in favor of getting rid of ranked choice voting in Alaska for many reasons. To me, it is designed to get unqualified and/or compromised candidates into public office. All of you have to do is to take a look at a sample ballot. Sample ballot.

Look at the names on here.

Um, it is not humanly possible for any one voter to have the time and the resources to vet all the names on the ballot. This alone discourages people to show up at the polls, uh, and voter turnout is— in the past has been very low in our state. Rank choice voting has been, uh, since it has been implemented. Uh, then once the primary is over, only the top 4 vote-getters get to move on to the general ballot. It is very unlikely that any one of these 4 will get the 50+1 vote to win outright during the first round of voting.

So Then it goes to the second, the third, the fourth, and before it is— before there is known who the winners are, who the winners are, this takes weeks to get the results. So who are the ones who advocate for ranked choice voting? In my opinion, seems they are the ones who want to destroy our system of government. The old system of voting has worked very well for hundreds of years and have kept people honest in the counting of votes. I can't help but think that those in favor of ranked choice voting are getting worried about the amount of support to repeal it has become.

I think the opposition is getting desperate to the point of losing or using lawfare and sending out their thugs to destroy our campaign signs. I have news for you all who you— who are just being destructive. Your intimidation is not working. We will win in November to get rid of ranked choice voting. Vote yes on Ballot Measure 2.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony, Carolyn. I'd now like to go online And the first person online is Bruce Battello, who's calling from Douglas. Bruce, can you hear me? I can.

Please proceed after you identify yourself.

Governor Dahlstrom, this is Bruce Battello speaking from Juneau, and I'm speaking in opposition to Ballot Measure 2. In 1932, Justice Louis Brandeis reflected on our nation's system of federalism as laboratories of democracy. He wrote that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory. Alaska's Constitution is a reflection of that invitation to experiment. It's reflected in allocating how powers of government should be shared, natural resources managed, and individual rights best protected.

I would suggest that enactment of open primaries, ranked choice voting, and banning dark money is another example that embodies Brandeis' characterization of a single courageous state willing to experiment. And it's also an affirmation of our Constitution striving to embrace a government that is of, by, and for the people. Our system today permits any Alaskan, regardless of that person's party affiliation or lack of it, to run for political office, and likewise any Alaskan regardless of party affiliation or lack of it to participate in selecting their chosen representatives. Voters of Alaska should reject Ballot Measure 2. Uh, Governor Dahlstrom, thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you, Bruce, for your testimony. Next online calling from Petersburg is Marlene Cushing. Marlene, can you hear me?

Hello. This is Marlene Cushing in Petersburg. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak. 10 Years ago, I was an election worker here in Petersburg, and that was under the old system. And I remember people coming in to vote in the primary election, and they were very disappointed, and some of them were very angry that they couldn't get their primary ballot that they wanted because the rules were being set by the political parties of who could choose to vote on their ballot.

Another issue that made people disappointed and angry was sometimes they wanted to vote for a Republican candidate for one office and a Democratic candidate for a different office. And with the closed primary system, they could not do that. So, I remember people, voters being very disenchanted with the old system. And in that sense, I think the current system is much superior. I also think that ranked choice voting has given us a legislature that is much less contentious and has been able to accomplish more than many of the legislatures had in the past.

So I think we are a leading example for the nation in having quality elections, having very available elections with our early voting and our mail-in ballots, and having very honest elections. And I see no reason to change the current situation, I will be voting no on this ballot measure. Thank you very much for allowing me to testify. Thank you for your testimony, Marlene. Next up, calling from Juneau, is Tom Dienst.

Dienst, am I saying that correctly, Tom?

Uh, yes, sounds good. Thank you, Honorable Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom and Director Beacher. I appreciate the chance to be able to speak to the ranked choice voting initiative, and I'm calling to urge voters to please vote yes to repeal ranked choice voting. Um, I— can you folks hear me okay? I'm hearing a little bit of static.

We can hear you great, Tom. Wonderful. Okay, so, um, I had the pleasure of serving as an election poll worker in Juneau during the past general election. I also worked on the certification board and on early ballots and absentee ballots for Region 1. So I was able to gain a lot of insight into our election processing, and I, of course, gained enormous respect for our Elections Division and what a stellar job they do.

So, but One thing that was very negative that I experienced as a poll worker was the frustration and the disenfranchisement of our voters as they came in. I happened to be assigned to the State Museum downtown, the State Museum and Library, and I observed numerous, numerous cases where the scanning machines that tabulated the ballots were rejected and the person posting the ballot was given the opportunity to fill out a new one. And the major problem was that they either did not want to or did not know how to do the ranked choice voting. And many of them expressed the frustration that they don't want to vote for 4 people or 7 people. They want to vote for one person.

And, you know, they were very upset. Some of them wrote cryptic notes on the ballots that I saw. Some of them just threw up their hands and walked out. And a lot of people were very, very emotional about their balloting. They view this as a very sacred public service, and they take the voting very, very seriously.

So it was frustrating to for me to see how poorly people understand ranked choice voting. You know, how they can't quite get it that for somebody to win an election, you have to have 50% of the votes plus 1. You have to have a plurality. And then you have votes that are actually exhausted, which gives the person the chance to at least imagine that their vote doesn't count or that not all votes are counted. So the instant runoff was done 20 days after Election Day, right?

And there were several waves of the instant runoff to do the ranked choice voting. Uh, an absolute nightmare, you know. So it's, uh, it was— of course, you know, we had the media there, we had the Attorney General's office there, everybody to make sure that everything was working well. But it still didn't strip away anything from the voter confusion. And I would invite Scott Kendall to see how many rejected ballots and how many spoiled ballots the division of election— and they do save everything, right?

So, uh, it went way up. Uh, we were told by the state OMB office that it took $800,000 in tax dollars to implement ranked choice voting originally.. And one state did a survey where their cost to implement the system was— went up by 328%. 328%. Alaska is currently the only state other than municipalities throughout the nation that is using ranked choice.

There are 19 states that have banned it. One of them, Missouri, actually banned it in their state constitution. So, you know, it's expensive. It does not seem to show any evidence of any more civility in political discourse. So it's just, you know, where are the benefits?

Tom, you have 4 minutes to wrap up, please. Okay. What we'll do, the dark money and other issues that have been spoken to are probably solved elsewhere in election law. Law. And, and, um, so I, I would strongly urge people to, uh, to help the voters, um, have less frustration with our voting system.

Vote, uh, yes on the initiative to repeal ranked choice voting. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Thank you for your testimony, Tom. Next, calling from Juneau, is Emily Kane. Emily, can you hear me?

Yes, can you hear me? Yes, please identify yourself and proceed. Thank you. My name is Emily Kane. I live in Juneau and I'm representing myself.

Thank you so much for this opportunity to present public testimony on Ballot Measure 2. I do want to just quickly say that I find the timing of this hearing a bit unfortunate since we won't be voting on Ballot Measure 2 until November in the general election, as everybody here knows. I testified earlier today on Ballot Measure 1, which is the primary ballot open for voting now, and I hope you will join me on voting yes on 1 to reinstate campaign contribution limits. The issues on Ballot Measure 2 are related, though distinct, and with a more comprehensive mandate. I've been a poll worker for over 10 years, and a certain number of spoiled ballots is normal.

My personal experience is that our current system has not produced more spoiled ballots. Twice already, Alaskans have voted to render dark money in campaigns illegal and to have open primaries and to vote by ranked choice to allow for more agency in selecting the winners. These measures promote fairer elections in several ways. First, they render hidden contributions illegal. We have a very effective state agency, APOC, monitoring campaign contributions.

Because I can look on APOC's website, I know that one of the top 3 donors to Yes on 2, people who want you to repeal our current system, is Kyle Bates. This was mentioned by Scott Cameron. Karl Bates contributed $25,000 to Yes on 2, and he was also recently convicted of embezzling $619,000 from the Alaska Medicare coffers. Just connect the dots there. Because of our current ban on dark money, we're able to look at APOC and investigate big donors.

Further, close to two-thirds of Alaskans are registered, undeclared, or independent voters, and they don't wanna be shoehorned into voting for Rs or Ds. With open primaries, which we currently enjoy, that means that no matter what your party registration is, including undeclared, you can vote in order of preference for all or any of the candidates who advance from the primary to the general election in November. The problem with closed primaries is that it really limits the voters' options. And it also maintains this dysfunctional partisan stance that's become more entrenched recently, rendering our federal Congress practically useless. This current U.S. Congress has passed fewer bills than every— any previous Congress in U.S. history, and that is nothing to be proud of.

So I want to vote no on 2 because I want to keep prohibitions on dark money. And I want to keep open primaries where voters can vote on the candidates they think are the best ones. The third aspect is to maintain ranked choice voting. Some will say that it's complicated or even chaotic. My goodness.

But really it isn't. It's like going into a Baskin-Robbins and checking out all the flavors. Many delicious, some weird. So you decide on your top favorites. Mine would be chocolate, vanilla, marzipan.

Chocolate, champagne, and coffee, for example. And on the ballot, you list them in the order of preference. You could choose only one. Nothing but chocolate, you might say. Emily, can I ask you to wrap up, please?

You're at 4 minutes. I'm almost done. Chocolate— let's say chocolate isn't universally a favorite and it's not going to get a lot of votes and won't likely win. Do you want to help elect your number 2? Of course you do.

So the best aspect of ranked choice voting is if the winning candidate requires a morality, at least 50% of the vote to win. And it goes to an instant runoff, which doesn't take weeks or months. So I'm voting no on 2 because I want to keep campaign finances transparent. I want to keep primaries open. And I want to maintain the current effective and democratizing policy of being able to list candidates I deem worthy of my vote in order of preference, up to 4.

Thank you so much for hearing my testimony. Thank you for your testimony. Next from Palmer is Sharon Westfals. Westfals? Sharon, can you hear me?

Uh, yes, I can hear you. It's Westfals. Great, please proceed. Uh, thank you very much for letting me talk. Um, after collecting signatures twice, the people that signed the petition were vehemently opposed to ranked choice voting.

It is a way for people to cheat and it has to stop. Other comments were made that it is too confusing. The first time it was voted on, the language was misleading and we lost by approximately 780-plus votes. When the people voted yes at that time, they thought they were voting to repeal ranked choice, so that adds another factor as to why this is not acceptable. We had enough votes to repeal ranked choice on the night of the election.

Balls were counted until they got the number they needed to implement ranked choice. Voting should be one day only. It should be one person, one vote. To count votes for weeks until the desired outcome is achieved is not what our founding fathers had in mind. If we go down this path, we will lose America to the communists.

I appreciate you for letting me say— I encourage everybody to vote yes to repeal. Thank you for your testimony, Sharon. Next, calling from Hope, is Frank Quinn.

Frank, can you hear me?

Yes, this is Frank Quinn from Hope and Homer sometimes. Um, I'm calling in with an example. I teach chess to children at the library starting at the first grade level, and I teach them a general principle Try to always understand why your opponent moved first. And the question would be, why would you combine 3 issues? Why would you have 35 pages of text for changes?

Why would you use dozens of logical fallacies to support it? And then why would you spend millions of dollars advertising to create fear and deception? And I believe the answer is dark money is evil and it would fail if it was the only thing on the ballot. So if you want dark money to be more possible and more legal with less penalties, what you do is you hide it behind two other issues. And I believe that's intentional deception.

I believe it's the same way a pickpocket would work. I'm going to distract you over here and go after the thing I really want. If it was honest and sincere, they could split this into three issues and then we could vote separately on the three issues. If they want to combine it then the reason they combined it is because the dark money would never pass on its own. I believe every Alaskan's against dark money.

So I would say vote no on this until they split it and they're honest and sincere about it. I would also, uh, suggest that if we're going to close the primaries, then every political party should register as a Republican and control the nominee, and then they will go back to open primaries. So to repeat, understand the general principle first. The general principle is dark money is evil and it would not pass on its own. The reason to combine them all is because they want it to be a Trojan horse.

Thanks very much. Thank you for your testimony. Next up in the room is Al Smay. Al, if you could please identify yourself, and the floor is yours.

Where? Right here. Okay. Um, last time it was mentioned something about Honest Elections. I was on the board for Yes on 2.

We were completely separate from them. I ended up getting sued by somebody from, uh, outside in Chicago because I wrote an article about the outside money coming into Alaska. Me and Suzanne Downing and others got sued. And so it's kind of personal to me on that. I wanted to bring up— and the last two times that we've had to vote on this, it only won by 600 votes the first time, 743 the second time.

That's not a mandate. Before ranked choice voting in 2020, Roger Holland, who had never run for office, beat the president of the Senate in Juneau, Kathy Giesel, by 30 percentage points. That shows you that the voters were upset with Kathy and the regular system worked to get her out of there. Okay. And at the same time, Kathy Giesel was on the board to support ranked choice voting.

2 Years later, after redistricting, her Senate district got moved over into Oceanview and other places, and there was 3 people on there and she got back in. And this is a quote from Kathy Giesel. This is her quote. The new ranked choice voting system will help me in the election in 2022. Also, most of us in this room know that ranked choice voting was put in there to keep Lisa Murkowski in office because she had lost in her primary in the last primary that she— or the last election she ran in ranked choice voting.

Kelly Shibaka would have won in a regular election, and we all know that. My question is, is why did Senate Majority Leader McConnell put in $9 million to keep Lisa Murkowski in office. And then why is there 7 names on the current ballot from people from outside? If you want a good article to read, article in the Alaska Story, Suzanne Downing, it says rank choice voting didn't cure Alaska politics. It helped politicians escape accountability.

And all you got to do is look at the gas line right now and who's holding it up.

Also, I have a contract. With the ranked choice voting repeal to put up 150 4x8 signs statewide. In Anchorage alone, people are destroying my signs. So that shows me the kind of people that are supporting no on it. These people— and I've got videos.

We're not going to publish them yet, but we got video. So we're not happy about people going around destroying our signs. They don't destroy the other signs that are in the area. They just destroy the ranked choice voting signs. Also, I've been here for 41 years.

I walk in this state talking to business people across the state. And yes, it is still confusing. I talked to 4 super voters just today on the phone and in person that said, Al, where is my mail-in ballot? They're Anchorage voters because we're used to the mail-in ballot. And one person said, then I'm— he said, I'm going to rank 3 people on the, the governor's race.

And I looked at him, I said, you got to be kidding me. You're a super voter. No, you cannot do that.

I thought state law said that on an initiative you can only have one issue. The first time around, the ballot initiative had three issues: dark money, ranked choice voting, and the jungle primaries. But the Supreme Court of Alaska said because they're in there, they can stay. So it's still confusing for older people. I have older people in their 80s that say, Al, I'm not even voting in the primary.

Because there's too many names on the list. So I encourage people to vote yes to repeal it. Thank you for your testimony. Next is Bonnie Jack, in the room.

If ballot measure— if Ballot Measure 2 passes— Can you identify yourself? I'm sorry. I'm Bonnie Jack, a lifelong Alaskan born in Anchorage. Thank you. If Ballot Measure 2 passes, it would take away the freedom of Alaskans— the freedom Alaskans now have to vote for candidates of their choice regardless of party.

I've been involved in politics of one kind or another since my high school civics teacher taught how important it was to research who we voted for. She didn't teach us about political— the difference between political parties, but about the importance of personal choice when voting. I've always voted for the person, not the party. I've been a member of the same political party since I registered many decades ago. Over the years, Alaska has seen many kinds of primaries.

A black line drawn down the center of the page with Democrats on the left and Republicans on the right—. Long time ago—. Where a voter could only vote on one side or the entire ballot was thrown out. Or a primary when Republican candidates were printed on pink paper and Democratic candidates were printed on blue paper. Today, both sound ridiculous and were.

Those old systems and others restrict— Those old systems and others restricted voters by party. Closing the primaries would push Alaska back towards that kind of limitation. If Ballot Measure 2 passes, a voter will no longer be able to select the candidates of their choice regardless of all the— their selections, unless all their selections are from one party and the voter is registered in that party.

As has been stated and probably will continue to be stated, more than 60% of Alaskans are registered, undeclared, and non-party— nonpartisan rather than registered to a specific party. More than 40% of voters cross those party lines and vote for candidates from different parties, myself included. Democrat— democracy works best when voters are free to choose the candidates they believe represent them, not political parties. I urge no vote on Ballot Measure 2. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Next in the room is Sue Easterly, and I'm going to ask everybody, if online and in the room, if— try to tighten your comments up as much as you can so we we can get through everybody. But welcome, Sue, and please identify yourself, and the floor is yours. My name is Sue Easterly. I'm a 67-year resident of Alaska, and I'll make this short.

Um, I've gathered signatures on the petitions to repeal ranked choice voting for the last two cycles, and the most people that I run into said they do not like the rank choice because it's too confusing. They don't know exactly how it works. I don't know exactly how it works. It's too confusing. I feel like it was originally confusing on the original ballot because people thought they were voting to get rid of dark money.

They did not know or understand what the rank choice was. And personally, for myself, I feel it should be one person, one vote. Count the votes. There's a winner, there's a loser. It's over.

It doesn't take a month to figure out who won or who lost. I will vote yes to repeal this monstrosity. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Next is Judy Elledge in the room.

Please identify yourself and the floor is yours.

Thank you once again, Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom, for this opportunity. My name is Judy Eledge and I am chair of Repel Now and I'm here in support of yes on 2. You know, I've known Mr. Kendall for many years, even when he was a Republican working for Lisa Murkowski, so I know that I know a lot about him. And so I'm really surprised that we come up with names. And I think it's clever.

Alaskans for a Better Election. Now, who does not want that? I do not know anyone that does not want better elections. But it's deceptive. It's extremely deceptive.

And this whole campaign against us, to me, is deceptive. They continually accuse us of bringing in dark money. When they brought $15 million of outside and dark money in the last election.

And this law doesn't do anything to make campaign finance better, as in their efforts on another ballot measure, 1, they, they carve out a place for unions and special interests to give more money. We didn't have NEA testify for us today, so that's obvious that they can donate in the campaign finance. They can donate one amount and then a union can donate 4 times more. They even have that in our law. It's carved out for those specific reasons.

If you really wanted equality in campaign finance, then you would just— you wouldn't have those carve-outs. Everybody would be able to give the same amount. So let's please be honest and stop telling lies because it is exhausting to hear it over and over again when there is absolutely no proof of what they're saying. I do believe in one person, one vote. I don't think there's anything dumb about that.

It undermines the majority rules. I don't think I was more shocked in my life than when in a recent court case that we're tied up with in the state. Over this and Mr. Kendall, the judge herself, after listening to the presentation by the Department of Law, State of Alaska, explained the law. She said, quote, "Oh, you mean in ranked choice voting, the person that gets the most votes may not win?" Quote. That was pretty shocking.

And then she ruled against us. So I don't know. It's complicated. It is complicated and it confuses voters, especially seniors, handicapped. I can't imagine someone that's English as a second language.

It ensures that the one person, the person with the most votes wins. 83% Of all Alaskans, undeclared, nonpartisan, and even libertarians could vote in our primary. The only people that couldn't would be like a Democrat from Democrat Party. Why on earth would you want to vote in a Republican primary? I think we all know it takes too long to declare a winner.

Everybody says it doesn't take any longer. Does anyone here— I know some of us are old enough to remember when we actually knew who won the election in one day, the day of the election. So that's just not true. It's another lie. It's— if it's so great, why has it been banned in 19 states, in 19 other states?

2 Very small states, Maine and Alaska, have it. Why? Because it doesn't take a lot of money because there's not a donor base here to change our election system. And that's what's going on. It undermines our trust in our election system and it ends the jungle primary where you have 17 people running for governor as in the election.

Does anyone really want a convicted felon in— well, convicted. He's actually in prison right now, and he's running for his second run. He's just running for a different office. It makes a mockery of our elections. And so when I hear these things, I do get upset because I am willing to fight an equal and a fair battle.

But I do not know how you fight the lies that are coming from the other side. I guess we can just try. Thanks very much. Thank you for your testimony. We're going to go back online and the next person calling in from Anchorage is William Saltenstall.

William, are you with me?

Yes, thank you. Both my wife, Beth Saltenstall, and myself are here to testify. And thank you for giving us the opportunity. Can you hear us all right? Yes, please identify yourself.

All right, my wife's asked, well, introduce yourself. I'm Elizabeth Falkenstahl and I'm an independent, and thank you for allowing us to give this testimony. Um, we're here to testify against ballot measure 2. Reading the measure was very complicated, 91 sections often referring to material printed elsewhere. While it's generally known as a measure to repeal ranked choice voting, it includes much, much more.

Briefly, we're in favor of ranked choice voting. We find it as simple as saying at the store, if they don't have chocolate, I'll have vanilla. It takes— saves taking the time, effort, and money of a later runoff election. More importantly, the measures, Sections 5 through 12 and more, seeks to repeal limits and disclosures on campaign contributions as well as removing penalties for violations. This would allow dark money from anywhere to sway our Alaskan elections.

Elections are too expensive for the common voter to have much influence. Let the mega donors donate to charity and schools. There's certainly a need there. Furthermore, the measure proposes getting rid of the open primary where we have all have access to all the candidates. This year we're supporting a Democrat, a Republican, and an independent.

We don't want to go back to closed primaries, which allow party insiders backed by unnamed and outside sources of money to choose and limit our candidates, which is how we end up with unpopular candidates like Joe Miller, who was defeated by the rare and difficult means of a write-in campaign demonstrating Senator Murkowski's popularity among Alaska voters, if not the party machine. Keep primaries open. Limit and disclose campaign contributions. Support ranked choice. Vote no on 2.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you, William and Beth, for your testimony. Next, calling in from Anchorage is Jan Carolyn. Jan, are you with me?

Hello, this is Jan Carolyn Hardy calling from Anchorage. Uh, thank you again for all of us to have this opportunity. Speak. I'm a member of organized labor, and I understand and I know very well that we have members who are populating the entire spectrum of politics. And for us, if we— if people come to us wishing our endorsement, it doesn't matter to us whether they're Republicans, Independents, Democrats, Greens, whatever, as long as they support organized labor and they support the, the welfare of families, working families.

So we have, we have a number of endorsees that are of varying parties, and so we really appreciate the fact that we have an open primary. This allows us to vote for the candidates that we endorse across this, across the political spectrum. And I know we have only one choice in this particular matter when it comes to, uh, the primary, but it gives us that opportunity. Whereas if we had the other system in which the parties determined whether or not you could have a ballot, uh, very limiting, it would make it impossible for us to support based on our own political assignment, whether or not we would be able to support those candidates, even though they are the ones that we endorse. The other item I just want to simply make a couple of statements about is the black money, or dark money rather.

And this is something that I feel should definitely be out of the spectrum of any kind of finance. I'm really in support of what we used to consider as a possibility of everybody donating a dollar on their, on their taxes, uh, so that we could fund, we could fund equally all people in their willingness to fight to, to gain office. So I want to thank you very much for this opportunity. I will be voting no on 2, and I would like for you all to consider the fact that this gives everybody an opportunity to look at the broader spectrum. And as one of the candidates, one of the people before me spoke, said that they could go for the person as opposed to the party.

Thank you. Thank you, Jan, for your testimony. Next up is Joan Core calling from Soldotna. Joan?

Yes, I'm Joan from Soldotna, and I am I'm a yes on 2, on ballot measure 2. Um, I, I don't like this jungle primary, and my big thing is ranked choice voting is not one man, one vote. We vote the first time for one person, and then the second time we go to vote, we vote for 4 people for the same office. And I vote one time, and the machine votes for me the other 2 2 or 3 times. That makes no sense to me.

And, um, and then the way the least amount of the, the person that gets least amount of vote, they're dropped off the ballot, and then they take their votes— this makes no sense at all— they take their votes and distribute them to the people at the top. And that is not one man, one vote, and that's just— it doesn't even make sense. No common sense and insanity. Uh, there's no logic. It's a complicated, corrupted system, and the way I see it, it's designed for the second or third placeholder to win, not the person who initially has the most votes.

It's not simple like picking your, your favorite ice cream out of three flavors like I've seen advertised. And thousands of ballots were was thrown out 2 years ago. And I've heard people say that they refuse to vote in this complicated, ridiculous system. Some didn't understand it, but some says— say it's an insult to their intelligence. Um, and I also worked as a poll worker, and the same number of ballots are not spoiled.

We used to have 1 to 3 ballots spoiled. There was 50. I mean, that, that's way more than double. 1 Or 2 or 3 to 50. And, uh, and we can't even find out who the winner is the next morning.

The results take way too long to come in. And how do you recount those ballots if there's a question? So it has undermined trust in our election system. And it does discourage voter participation. So many people don't want to vote at all.

So what's wrong with the person one vote? It's simple. And that's my shortened opinion of this nonsense. So vote yes on ballot measure 2. Thank you.

Joan, thank you for your testimony. Next calling in from Palmer is Tyler Slater. Tyler.

Hi, my name is Tyler Slater. I'm representing myself and I'm calling in in favor of ballot measure 2. Ranked choice voting is just— it's become very— it's very convoluted. I can't even name the number of people that have asked me how exactly it works, or the amount of people that just don't bother voting now due to it. Uh, it should be one person, one vote.

And all the opposition's talk about the closed primary— that we haven't had a closed primary in a long time. As long as you are not a registered Green Party or Democrat, you could vote in like the Republican primary, for instance, and vice versa for the Democratic primary. To my knowledge. I just find that it not only costs more to the state to run the elections and tabulate the ballots, it also increases the amount of time it takes to actually get the results.

And it, to a degree, it appears it's you know, just so convoluted as a new voter, for instance, they have no clue how to go about it. And it's just a very unfortunate system to be voting under. And as it was stated earlier, it's been banned in multiple states already. I think like 18, 16. And it just seems like it would be better to go back to how it was previously, one person, one vote.

I also have heard talk about dark money and that issue, whereas the people opposing it have brought in, you know, large, large amounts of outside money, far more than the Yes on 2 people. So I don't necessarily see how they can say that it helps protect election integrity and whatnot when they're actively doing what they're saying that they're trying to prevent. But thank you for your time. Thank you, Tyler, for your testimony. And calling in from Eagle River is Alex Jorgensen.

Alex?

Hello. Hello, please identify yourself and you may speak. Hi, my name is Alexander Jorgensen. I'm a resident of Eagle River and wanted to first off thank you so much for giving me an opportunity to speak. And I'm going to try not to be redundant.

I know there's probably a lot of people after me and people that have before me have said a lot of really salient points, but, you know, ever since, uh, you know, I've been voting at least for the past decade or so, you know, I've been a firm believer that political parties don't have a monopoly on good ideas. Now, I'm proud to say that I voted for Democrats, I voted for Republicans, I voted for independents. And that's why I really appreciate the current system of open primaries that we have, that I get to vote for whatever candidates I want. I don't have to choose to vote in the Republican primary. I don't have to choose to vote in the Democrat primary.

I can just choose to vote in the Alaska primary. And that's really one kind of critical component that I appreciate about our current current election law. And I also really enjoy the transparency. You know, ever since I began, you know, paying attention to political ads growing up, outside money or money coming from out of state has always been a part of Alaska's electoral system, whether we like it or not. It always has been.

And I know I'm not a fortune teller. I can't predict the future, but I'm pretty confident to say that outside money will always be a part of our election system. And with our current system of transparency and regulations that require disclosure of donor information, as an Alaskan, I get to see where that money is coming from. I know that it's from outside and I know what group is providing that money. And I think as a voter, that provides a lot of really important information for me on how I choose to vote and who I choose to support.

So I think for me, Because I really value those two provisions of our current election system, I'm definitely not going to be supporting Ballot Measure 2, and I'd really encourage everyone to vote no on Ballot Measure 2. Thank you. Thank you, Alex, for your testimony. Next up in the room is Adrian Carino, and then if Dorothy Smith in the room could be ready to be next up after Adrian. Welcome.

Please identify yourself and and share your testimony. Governor, get a little closer and then we'll hear you. Thanks for hearing our testimony today. I'm Adrienne Canino, and I'm an average voter here in Anchorage representing myself. I'm here to talk about how I like the law as it is.

I like open primaries. Open primaries mean more of us can participate. Open means two entrenched political parties with their emotional baggage from outside can't hide away and pick a gym class hero that I have to deal with. I like open primaries because it means candidates have to appeal to us, the people. I like campaign finance transparency.

Transparency means we can look at all the numbers of donations and, like my dad taught me, follow the money. I like that it means they have to disclose their money trails and that empowers the people. Speaking of empowering people, I like ranked choice voting. I like that my vote matters all the way up and down the ballot. I like that ranked choice voting means politicians have to demonstrate their commitment to policy that works for all of us.

I like bringing more people's voice into the representation that our taxes pay for. So that's my theme. I like empowering people in our politics. I like the law the way it is. I'll be voting no on 2.

Thank you for your testimony, Adrienne. Dorothy?

And then after Dorothy, if Randy Elledge could be ready up next.

Hi. Good afternoon. I'm Dorothy Smith. Thank you for this opportunity. I will be voting yes on ballot Measure 2.

And the reason I will be voting yes is I find ranked choice voting is a real paradox. You're saying that, um, it's against dark money, and I hear that dark money and outside money are different. Well, in my mind they aren't, because, um, why are people from outside so anxious to contribute to our elections? Why are they interfering in our elections? I think that when I hear dark money, I think it's from outside.

I don't think it's from here in Alaska. So I think the whole thing is a real paradox. And I don't think it's transparent. Yes, it says it's coming from outside. But what, what is the objective behind this?

Most of ranked choice voting came all— in fact, I think all the funding for the first ranked choice voting came from outside. So that to me says the outside money, dark money, was used to get in ranked choice voting. Therefore, I think it's rather corrupt. Um, totally against it. I will be voting yes, and I don't think that this ranked choice voting is transparent.

I don't think it is even ethical, and I think there's a reason why it is being banned in 19 other states. Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony, Dorothy. Next up is Randy Elledge. And then if Linda Smith in the room could be ready after Randy.

Welcome. Please identify yourself and the floor is yours. Good afternoon, Lieutenant Governor. How are you today? I'm great, thank you.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak. Can you not hear me? I'll try to put it next to my lips.

I'm Randy Elledge. I'm a Alaskan voter, an Alaskan veteran.

I am for repeal of ranked choice voting. This provides for whole truth in our elections. Analysis shows less and less participation of voters, yielding a possibility of a minority being elected. If we have a judge in the state of Alaska that does not know that the person with the most votes cannot win— may not win, pardon me— the election, that should tell us volumes about what our current system is. I am voting yes to repeal ranked choice voting because of that.

The confusion in my mind leads to power. If, if there's confusion, that means that there's probably some folks that will not vote. Why? Because they're not sure of what they're supposed to do. That confusion gives power to possibly a minority, and that minority ends up in power, in a position of power within her state.

I am not for that. I am for one vote from one person. I think that that, uh, is the same principle that our founding fathers had. I don't want to change that. I'm voting yes to repeal ranked choice voting.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony, Randy.

Linda Smith.

And if next up after Linda, if Mae Weiss could be ready, that would be great.

I think I'm going to make it short, but I have the feeling that our constitutional fathers back a long time ago are actually visiting our room and listening to our speech. So I think I better be careful. But I don't have to be careful because I have a lot invested in being against ranked choice voting. It isn't for the country.

And I, well, I come from, I was 25 years at the University of Alaska Anchorage. Where I was— I forget what it was— vice chancellor of student affairs and a professor. And then I came from the University of Washington before that after 10 years. And I've always loved Alaska and the wherewithal that we get to make things happen that haven't been happened in Alaska before. But the main reason why I'm against it, I just recently learned I have marched for thousands of signatures to get rid of it.

Um, and I listen to what the other states have to say about it, which is like, what is wrong with Alaska? Um, but I noticed that on our ballot, um, that I think Judy mentioned that we have a felon, um, on the ballot for to be nominated. Um, we have his mother to be nominated, and we have 6 other states wanting the position that goes to Alaska to be nominated and, and run for, um, the office. I think that's ridiculous, um, and anybody would think that's ridiculous. I think we talk a lot about what ranked choice voting is, and it Sounds good.

Rank choice. Well, we get a choice. No, the choice is a convoluted mess and we need to get rid of it for Alaska and for the people and for America. I think God is watching over us. Well, I don't think it, I know it.

And I want to do what's right. And I think getting rid of ranked choice voting is very, very, very right. Thank you. And for the record, can you give me your name? Oh, Linda Bergsmith.

Thank you. So, May. And then after May, the next person in the room will be Priscilla Hurley. If you could be prepared. Welcome.

Please state your name. Hello. Hello. My name is Mary Weiss. I'm representing myself and I live in Anchorage.

And first of all, I would like to thank you and the Legislative Information people for the courtesy and professionalism that I've seen. And the second thing I was kind of questioning is in the last go-around, there was a gentleman who asked, "What are the consequences of this hearing?" And I haven't really heard anything, and I'm not sure why we're even here. And that's what he said. But meanwhile, I don't want to— I want to keep this short. Um, my understanding of Proposition 2 is that it would do 3 things, which I think somebody else has also brought up the fact that these 3 things should never have been put together on the same ballot.

And actually, that's another reason why I will be voting no on Proposition 2. Um, first of all, it allows dark money If a proposition passes, the names of people who fund campaigns, including people who I call investors, who provide huge sums to persuade instead of to inform, although they may not even be able to vote in Alaska, they will be able to hide behind their own anonymity. There's an old saying about follow the money, and this will— If, if Proposition 2 passes, we will not be able to follow the money. Meanwhile, the activity of these investors could have unfair influence on an election and disenfranchise grassroots candidates as well as us voters. With large anonymous funders, the election process becomes a matter of money, Who can pay the highest price rather than the quality of the candidate.

Proposition 2 would also eliminate ranked choice voting, which we've heard a lot about today. And it would— and it would also eliminate open primaries. I've heard today about one person, one vote. Well, the primary is one person, one vote. One vote, and that would be eliminated if Proposition 2 passes.

This is a power grab by established political parties to take back the influence for those who, uh, who win elections from us voters, especially voters, and it places it in the hands of political party insiders. So for this reason, these reasons, I urge everyone to vote no on Proposition 2 on November 3rd. Thank you. Thank you, Mae, for your testimony. And as Priscilla is coming up, Mae, I just would like to share, you were not here at the beginning of the hearing when I shared that the reason we have these hearings is because a statute was passed by the legislature in 2010 that requires us to have this hearing.

And we do— we follow all the laws and all the statutes in Division of Elections.

I'm sure the legislature would write me a nasty letter.

But I know you weren't here in the beginning and you may have been working. I wanted to share that with you. So, Priscilla, welcome. Please identify yourself and share your Yes, good afternoon. My name is Priscilla Hurley and I live in Anchorage, Alaska.

And I will be voting yes on 2 for the following simple reasons. Number 1, complexity and voter confusion. It's kind of a repeated theme here. I have a— this is— I humbly say I have a lot of education. I have an undergraduate degree and a graduate degree.

I've had a career managing educational services and working up to the executive level. I share this not to boast, but to point out that all this education plus my attendance at a class to explain ranked choice voting has not aided me in understanding it at all for the following reasons. Number why— number one is why it was installed to replace our former voting system. Two is how the process actually works, or three, what was the purpose of this change? It is confusing, and voters should not be confused about the value of their vote.

Secondly, confusion caused by ranked choice voting process can lead to voter disenfranchisement. Disenfranchisement, causing fewer people to turn out to vote— another common theme today. In general, and for several reasons, voter confidence has been damaged in the past years throughout the country. Many states and communities are taking measures to improve voter integrity. My view is that by removing ranked choice voting in Alaska, and the confusion and unnecessary process it is, voter confidence will improve.

Voting has never been a confusing venture for me in the past, but ranked choice voting hasn't— was installed, and my confusion has just been ongoing since. In my view, it needs to go, so I would vote yes to remove rank choice voting. Thank you very much. Thank you, Priscilla, for your testimony. Next up is Wyatt Nelson in the room, and then he will be followed by Gerard Farkas.

Wyatt, welcome. Please identify yourself and share your testimony.

Hello. Hello. My name is Wyatt Nelson, and I live here in Anchorage, Alaska, and I've come here to testify in support of my group's repeal pleasure to get rid of ranked choice voting. And I have a revelation, and that will basically like send shockwaves in this room if everyone's watching on their TVs or computer. Here's— I have a shockwave to say: I am the grandson of Congressman Don Young, and I'm proud of it.

Yeah, so I'm glad to come here again, and because I testified before, or last week at the last hearing, because I'm just like utterly disgusted by the opposition and their scare tactics that they're just like using our jingle and have it be twisted out of context, which is just like, um, totally bonkers. It's like they're saying we are the dark money, you're the ones that talk— you're basically accepting money from donors who are accepting it from other earth sources, from this point A to point B, which is basically like a type of, um, laundering and money fraud, which is basically what it is, money laundering, which is totally disgusting. And plus, we already have a perfect system called APAC because this whole old ballot measure or the current system with this whole disclosure thing makes no sense because of it allows a legal loophole is that people from outside from one other state or one other corporation can basically like donate to a— I cannot really tell where that money came from, run from one point A to point B. So that's what it is. And how else to explain about how very great it was for me for my first time experience of collecting signatures last year in 2025.

And I was proud of it. And I collected like 595 signatures total, and I was part of a parade to deliver all the books. And I also had my time speaking and testifying, or speaking to a reporter, and even had me quoted in one article, as I recall, which is pretty great. And I'll tell you one other fun experience. When I was out collecting signatures, I actually came across Lisa Murkowski, who was shopping at one of the grocery stores, and I said, Hi, remember me?

And she's like, do I know you from somewhere? Don't you recognize me? I am Don Yuen's grandson, why not? I said, oh yeah, I remember you. Then I did feel like showing my vest, instead of showing the shirt, or saying, check out my new shirt.

You should have seen the look on her face, it was absolutely hilarious. Yeah, and so that's what it was. And there's one thing I could just picture in my mind is that since I have written 4 articles that I published online online on different websites, which are two. One on Must Read Alaska, the other being on Anchorage Daily News. And people could just simply type it up on Must Read Alaska or just go on Anchorage Daily News and read my articles, which is pretty good.

I'm glad to publish four articles, and the fourth one was published fairly recently on Must Read, which is pretty good. And I could basically just picture what the ranked choice voting lobby is probably saying against me right now, is saying, you'll pay for this, Wyatt Nelson. Yeah, so yeah, it's— that's what it's basically like in my head of the way how I picture it. So I'm just wanting to like, um, also mention in the fact that, um, I also had talked to some radio show hosts before, both in person and also on the phone before. Or, or I've also talked with like, um, Amy Domboski on the phone before, or on her talk show, which was a pretty good experience, was doing basically explaining about the 2024 repeal measure, which was Really good, good.

And, um, since I didn't like, um, usually tell people all about who I was over the phone because I usually like to introduce people in person about who I am, but, um, since I am here in person, it's basically like going to be like, um, quite of a new start. I'd say about what the grandson of Congressman Don Young testify in support of repealing ranked choice voting. And I've also have this, um, one pretty good line to say if I were to be dressed up like Uncle Sam, I'd say I want you to vote yes on 2U and do the right thing because it basically restores common sense. Thank you, Wyatt, for your testimony. Yep.

Gerald Barkas. And if there's anyone else in the room that wishes to testify that hasn't signed up, I need you to sign in on the sign-in sheet. Gerald, welcome. Please identify yourself and the floor is yours. Here's the microphone.

Is the microphone on? Yes, it is. Yes. My name is Gerard Farkas. Gerard, I apologize.

And I am a resident here in Anchorage, Alaska since 1967. I'm here to talk a little bit about ranked choice voting and how Alaska ranked choice voting has successfully co-opted Alaska's elections and voters with outside dark money. The very thing they claim to uphold. The problem was that there truly were 3 issues on the original ballot measure, as there are now, which obfuscate the real issues that need to be decided by Alaska voters. And those could easily be separated in the future.

So I support repeal of ranked choice voting at this time. And if the The state wants to move forward or the electors want to move forward, separate those issues and address them individually. I think that's the fair way to do it. The razor-thin vote margins spent by outside dark money co-opting our Alaska elections for their own political agendas is obvious in the last two elections that we've had on ranked choice voting. The spending was multiples of 7 to 10 times the money that was raised and spent by Alaska organizations at the grassroots level.

And that is even obvious right now. APOC is failing. About half of the ads that you see right now, um, pro-Ballot Measure 2, um, do not list the contributors, the major contributors. They put on nice fancy names, and when you go to those websites, they don't list who the contributors are. It's outside dark money that is actually trying to support and continue ranked choice voting.

And I wish that APOC would do something about that. I called them, I talked to them, they said I could file a complaint. How long does that last? Takes about 6 6 months, election's gone, everybody's bankrupt, see you later. We can say anything we want and we've got the loudest voice because we've got the most money.

That needs to change, but that's the way that it is. There's a lot of confusion, as people have said, with ranked choice voting. I personally am a little bit galled that some people get 4 votes and others get 1.

Basically, the dark money campaign funding turns the election into a popularity contest similar to electing high school class officers. That's about what it is. The candidates— there's no vetting of candidates by parties, which is a very important part of our constitutional republic form of government. We have people that can call themselves Republican, Democrat, liberal, whatever you want to do it, but they have nobody to hold their feet to the fire. When I call an individual, I have no power to talk to that candidate.

I can talk to them, but they don't listen to me. It's not like the Republican Party representing tens or hundreds of thousands of people talking to a candidate and asking them to adhere to their party platform. So, basically, it turns it into a popularity contest. The elected officials are truly not accountable to any— anyone for their actions while in office. There's also no transparency.

The complications of counting the votes is about the farthest thing you can get from transparency. It's so complicated, it takes the state with computers 30 days to certify an election? What do we do for recounts? What do we— how do we know? How do we trust that?

I think it leads to suspicion of election integrity. So I would urge everyone to vote to repeal ranked choice voting. It has co-opted the voice of the Alaska electorate and of our Alaska Alaska elections by outside dark money who have national goals. Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony, Gerard.

On the line, calling from Anchorage, we have Kim Hayes. Kim, are you with me? Yes, good afternoon. My name is Kim Hayes. I'm a resident of Anchorage, Alaska.

I want to thank the Lieutenant Governor and Director Beecher for taking testimony today. I'm going to be honest, uh, when Alaska first changed our voting system, I wasn't necessarily convinced. But I have to say that actually voting under a much more inclusive system, I've become much more supportive of it because I feel like I actually have a real choice. This November, I will be voting no on Ballot Measure 2. I'm someone who's voted for Democrats, Independents, Republicans.

I have really truly voted for the person I think will do the best job, and I really appreciate being able to do that. That in a primary without having to limit myself to one party's candidates. To me, that feels very Alaskan. I'm also concerned that this ballot measure too isn't just about changing how we vote. It also wants to roll back the campaign finance disclosure laws that give Alaskans the ability to see who is spending money to influence our elections.

We have some of the strongest dark money disclosure laws in the country. I think that's something we should actually be proud of. If someone, whether they live here in Anchorage or Pennsylvania or wherever they live, wants to spend millions of dollars influencing how Alaskans vote, I think we deserve to know who they are and where that money comes from. And so for me, these issues really come down to the same principle. I want more power in the hands of the voters.

I think our current system does just that. I want the freedom to vote for the candidates I choose regardless of party, and I want the transparency to know who is spending money trying to influence my vote. Right now I have more choices under the current system, not fewer, and I really don't want to give that up. And And that's why, again, I am a no vote on Ballot Measure 2 this November. Thank you so much for taking time today, and I hope I was concise.

You were, Kim. Thank you very much for your testimony. Next is Karen Robinette from Wasilla. Karen, can you hear me?

Yes. Hello. Thank you for giving us the time to testify today. I'm Karen Robinette. I live just north of Wasilla, Alaska, and My main— well, one of my main reasons for, for supporting Yes on 2 is that the current ranked choice voting system is so confusing.

And for those of you who claim it doesn't confuse you, I'm glad it doesn't confuse you. I spent an hour or two trying to figure out how to vote the first time using it, and then when I was collecting ballot signatures for this initiative. I talked to hundreds of people who said that they just hated it because they were so confused by the system, not only by the general election process with the 4 choices, but also by the large number of candidates on the ballot for each office. Uh, 16 candidates for U.S. Senator and 15 for Representative, and 17 for governor, most of whom are not serious candidates at all.

The, the system is easily gamed and is regularly gamed, as in the Dan J— Daniel J. Sullivan, who's been put on the ballot right next to Dan S. Sullivan, in my opinion, just to confuse voters so that some of the incumbent's votes will get accidentally given to somebody who has not shown any intention of actually being a U.S. senator. And then we've got 2 people at least who don't even live in the state running for those offices. If we had primaries, the parties would have weeded them out before they got on the ballot. So that all is confusing to voters. As to the dark money, I tried the other day for several hours to track the money to going to different campaigns with our current supposedly clear system, and all I got was the major donors with some organization.

That organization's major donors were other big organizations, and after about 6 hours of tracking them down, I finally gave up. There's nothing transparent about where the money's coming from under our current system. Whether it sounds like it or not, dark money and out-of-state money and non-transparent money sources have been dominating Alaskan elections for all of the 47 years I've been in the state, and I'm sure before that. So that problem is not solved by repealing— or by not repealing rank choice. But other problems are solved if we repeal ranked choice.

The other thing was that in the last election, a lot of the people I talked to collecting ballot signatures told me they thought they had voted to repeal ranked choice in 2024, uh, for only to find out that a no vote meant to keep it when they thought a no vote meant to repeal it. So hundreds of people told me that their vote actually counted the wrong way. Another, yet another way this all is confusing. Can I ask you to wrap it up, please? So this is why I'm voting yes on 2.

Thank you. Thank you. Next calling from Juneau is Robin Sundry, and just for the audience, we have 9 more people after Robin. So, Robin, the floor is yours, if you could identify yourself.

Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Robin Sunrise. I'm a researcher for the Sightline Institute and I live in Juneau with my family. Sightline is an independent nonpartisan think tank that seeks to uncover ways to help our region solve hard problems relating to energy, housing, and importantly, elections.

We have studied Alaska's election system since its passage, and I just want to share a few facts about the system that I think Alaskans should consider this November. The first is that our open primaries allow you to vote across parties in primaries for candidates that represent your views, not just those of a given party. In 2022, more than half of Alaska voters split their tickets and voted for candidates across multiple parties. Most American voters live in states whose systems would not allow for them to vote for a Republican for a Democrat for Senate, and an Independent for the legislature. We have that explicit right in Alaska thanks to our election system.

Second, voters understand ranked-choice voting and use it when it counts. 84% Of Alaskans find ranked-choice voting simple. In the race for the U.S. House in 2024, supporters of the Alaska Independence Party's John Wayne Howe put Republican Nick Begich over the top by ranking him second. The results of congressional races in the past two cycles show that our instant runoff system does not favor either party and ensures that when candidates win, they win with majority support. Alaska is becoming more effective in terms of its governance in the wake of our new election system.

In both the 2023 and 2025 legislative sessions, House lawmakers formed cross-partisan coalitions faster than they had prior to the change. To the reform. Legislators have also continued to avoid culture war debates and have voted across party lines. And remarkably, Alaska's bipartisan system is unique in the country. Bipartisan coalition is unique in the country today.

Finally, Alaska's current election system checks the influence of dark money in our elections by mandating that independent expenditure groups report the true source. This is a common sense campaign finance reform that has led to a lot more transparency. Voters can see who is behind a given message and factor that into their decisions. And Alaskans should be aware that they would be blinding themselves to this important civic information if they vote in favor of the ballot measure in November. I'll just close by saying that according to our research, Alaska's election system has had the following effects.

Voters can express nuanced opinions. Candidates have room to reach across party lines. The legislature is more more effective and we have a clear idea of who's funding political campaigns. And I'll leave it there. Thanks so much.

Thank you for your testimony, Robin. Linda Raymond from Homer, did I skip you?

Hi, um, I'm Linda Raymond from Homer. Thank you both for allowing me to speak, and I'm speaking for myself. Thank you. I'm opposed to Proposition 2. I'm voting no.

Two things about this proposition especially I don't like. First is a Trojan horse hidden way back, pages and pages, allowing secret dark money hidden in there near the end, easily overlooked. They thought, I guess, this secret dark money provision is bad enough, but I also don't like that this would end open primaries. 65% Of Alaska, including myself, are not in either of the two major parties. Alaskans are independent thinkers and should not be prevented from voting for any candidate who's running for office.

Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate your testimony. Next is Allison Kelly from Anchorage.

Ellison. Okay, I see unavailable. Next up is Judy Miller from Homer. Judy.

Hi, this is Judith Miller of Homer representing myself. I am speaking in opposition to Ballot Measure 2. Dark money, closed primaries, and ranked choice voting should be separate issues. Ballot Measure 2 supports dark money by repealing our current dark money ban, and it closes primaries. Closed primaries serve to put extremists or those who are less moderate into office.

Despite those who have spoken claiming ranked choice voting is too confusing, review of ballots shows that is not the case. Most ballots are directly filled in. With ranked choice voting, you can simply vote for who you like most, or you can also include second, third, and fourth choices regardless of party. Ranked choice voting does not delay tabulation. One last warning: money for Ballot Measure 2 comes mostly from an outside billionaire and an embezzler.

That's who Yes on 2 represents. Please protect our elections. Vote no on 2. Thank you for your testimony, Judy. Next is Thomas DeLong from Fairbanks.

Thomas?

Hello, is this Thomas DeLong? Turn. Hello, it is your turn. Please identify yourself and proceed. My name is Tom DeLong.

I'm from Fairbanks, Alaska, and I'm representing myself. I'm here today to, uh, to talk against voting for Ballot Measure 2. As previous, uh, testifiers have said, um, really, really dislike the fact that this is 3 votes in 1 and really dislike that the, uh, dark money provision is, uh, kind of hidden in there. And I just think that's somewhat shameful. I gotta say that I think Alaska's voting system is one of the best in the nation.

And I don't understand people's opposition to it. I don't understand why they would want donations without disclosure and wonder if that does not set up a "prêt-à-poser" system. I mean, I just think money in politics today has really gotten out of hand. And, you know, I'm not saying it's one party or the other. It's totally out of hand.

And I really, really think we need to— put a limit on this, and we need to know where the money's coming from. And I strongly urge people to vote no on 2. As a couple other testifiers have also said in the past couple elections here too, I don't like to be tied to a party. I'm not— haven't chosen a party. I never have since I was 17 years old.

I'm an independent, um, and I will remain independent. And I have in the past voted for Republicans Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and I want to continue that. I think the party system tends to elevate extremists. It brings around lack of ability to compromise and get to somewhere. And I'm very, very vehement that Alaskan party politics and party politics in general is really not helping this country and certainly not helping the state.

I urge everyone to vote no on this. We voted on this, I think, the second time. Please vote no. And thank you for having this hearing. And that's my testimony.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony, Thomas. Next is Camilla Potts from Palmer. Camilla?

Thank you very much. My name is Camilla Potts, and I am from Palmer, Alaska. And I'm representing myself. I have actually been a poll worker and have collected signatures to repeal ballot measure number 2. And no surprise, all the signatories were adamant about repealing this measure.

I too support repealing ranked choice voting with a yes vote for ballot measure number 2.

Ranked choice voting is a very convoluted and deceptive way of tabulating votes for the candidates, and this must be repealed. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you for your testimony, Camilla. Next is Joyce Dustin Dementov from Fairbanks.

Yes, um, Joyce Justin Dementa from Fairbanks, and, uh, I'm going to be voting no on Ballot Measure 2. And I agree with a lot of what people before me have said, you know, how you're unhappy with your choices within any party and want to look at the whole field. Some people have thought that ranked choice voting brought in a bunch of strange outsiders applying for our federal offices, but in reality, anyone in the country can run for our U.S. Senate and U.S. Representative positions. That wasn't a problem, ranked-choice voting. The people supporting how much more cross-partisan legislation we're getting through at the state level, I love that.

And then people complaining about how long it takes to tabulate, I think that's more of a function of that we accept mail-in ballots that are made on Election Day. Waiting for all the mail-in ballots to come in is the problem, not so much the ranked choice part. But the one thing I think that's unique that I haven't heard anybody talk about yet is that— I tried to look closely at the language of the current ballot measure, and I was looking at the first statute that it makes changes to. Out of the 35 pages, I'm talking about, you know, like page 1. So, uh, the 15.10.210 statute, I expected it to just roll back what was passed in 2020, like the 2024 Ballot Measure 2 did, you know, that it was just going to add the old language back in and delete the new language.

But instead, when I read that section, it's pretty confusing. I think it would be hard to actually fulfill their proposed— the sponsor's proposed bill language. It's not clear whether or not you're choosing voters of which the governor is a member, or are we counting registered Are we counting votes cast? They managed to mix up the 2020 original with— I mean, that 2019 original with the 2020, combining the two and deleting nothing in its first section. So I think they've actually made the law more confusing, even for people who wanted to vote yes.

It actually— this thing is making the law more confusing, and I have many more Section 34 pages to go. Anyway, I'm voting no, and I ask everyone to please look closely at the sponsor's proposed bill language because it is not very clear at all. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony, Joyce. Next up is Teresa Obermeyer from Anchorage.

Teresa.

Lietenant Governor Dahlstrom, Theresa Obermeyer. I really appreciate your holding this meeting, but I don't appreciate the timing of it because I have already mentioned there is a court case that's coming up, oral argument on Tuesday, August 25th at 1:30, held by the Alaska Supreme Court. And it's going to be— and I really agree with especially an old friend of mine, Gerard Farkas. These three issues, which are restoring political parties, primaries, ending ranked choice voting, and repealing current campaign finance laws, those three issues should be separated. This might be what the court court is going to discuss an oral argument on August 25th.

And I do refer you to the oral, oral argument calendar, which lists 8 attorneys that are going to speak that afternoon. What I take total exception to is the oral argument is online. I am sick and tired of this court being behind closed doors. If you'll forgive me also, Lieutenant Governor, when I finished hearing today, I see that you are in Anchorage, I guess. And I went over to the LIO on Tuesday and asked all about this, and I was not told I could testify in person.

I would like you to see my muncho. I would like to speak in front of you, and I was not told— I was told the only way to to testify is online. I don't prefer online. We're human beings, and I want to speak in person. But I hope that you will help me make sure that that oral argument on August 25th at 1:30 will be in person at the Alaska Supreme Court.

We are Americans, and we own our courts, and we should have a right to go in and face the 5 justices. Of course, we know it's also going to be recorded, and citizens that want to watch it online can do that. I myself prefer to be in person in a courthouse. I grew up in a courthouse. I am a judge's daughter, and I've always been around lawyers and judges.

And I'm getting so desperate now when I see that this oral argument is not in person at the courthouse. Please join me on Tuesday, August 25th, at the Alaska Supreme Court in person at 1:30. I appreciate very much your allowing me to speak, Lieutenant Governor. I don't even want to speak about the issue. I— because I do believe the court will throw all this out and change it.

And then—. But that's going to come up after the primary. So the whole thing is incomprehensible to me. But thank you for hearing me and have a nice afternoon. Thank you, Teresa, for your testimony.

Next is Patrick Osmond from Anchorage. Patrick? Hi, good afternoon. Hello, please identify yourself. Yes, please identify yourself and share your testimony.

Thank you, Lieutenant Governor, and thank you, Director. This is Patrick Osmond. I live here in Anchorage. And I'm speaking for myself. As a retired 30-plus-year civil servant, I just wanted to say that I don't think it takes much gray matter to figure out ranked choice voting.

I'll leave it at that. Second thing I want to say is as far as dark money goes, APOC is a great idea. Uh, but we got Elon Musk, we got corporate billionaires, we've got everybody else who was contributing. So, um, a little bit of accountability, transparency, and some teeth would be in line. I am going to vote no on the measure myself.

And, uh, I forgot about the last thing I was going to say. Yeah. Anyway, I agree with everybody else in their comments on voting no to repeal this, uh, ranked-choice voting issue. And I want to see the dark money stop, and I want to see some accountability and some repercussions done. Politicians who are doing nothing more than enabling themselves and enriching themselves personally at the account and expense of the people.

Expensive voters. The last thing I wanted to say, I just remembered it, was that I think that you're going to see a very large increase in the voting turnout this year, and especially since what has happened over the past 10 years, uh, given our politicians, given our government, given our do-nothing, uh, everything.

Federal-wise, we've got some issues to solve here in Alaska, too. But I don't want to see that money coming across. I don't want to see anybody that donates has to be identified, has to be accountable. And if they break the law, I want to see some teeth used for repercussions of such acts.

Politics is supposed to be for the people, by the people, and of the people. And we're supposed to have the choice to vote our minds, our, our conscious. And it doesn't take a lot of effort to go in and read about each of the candidates around the ballots.

Um, if somebody is running for office and decides that they're not going to put any information as far as education, experience, volunteer work, community efforts, and things like that, I wouldn't consider them. As an undeclared, as an undeclared voter in Alaska, I want, I want the choice to be able to pick the right person, pick the person I know that has the competence and is honest enough to do the job. And if that person fails in the first, first go around, they're not going to get my vote in the second go around. Last thing is the inconsistency with the current ballot. You've got dinner, uh, you've got Senator Dan Sullivan, uh, who is the incumbent, and it's also noted that he is the incumbent, but also Nick Begich is an incumbent.

So I was just wondering why there is no incumbent for the House, but there is an incumbent written down besides Dan Sullivan's name. And if Alaskans can't figure out the difference between the two Dan Sullivans, then they probably shouldn't be voting anyway. That's all I have to say. Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony.

Next up is Lynn McCabe calling in from Big Lake. Lynn.

Hi there, thank you for taking my call, Lieutenant Governor and Director. I am, I'm a little bit flabbergasted by some of the testimony I'm hearing. It's kind of ironic that people are saying that having 3 topics on the ballot should be a no-go when in 2019 or 2020 When it was challenged in court, the, um, the 3 issues were in court and the judge ruled that they could be allowed on the ballot as 3 issues. So now trying to undo that, it's just kind of an irony that some people think that, uh, that that's wrong. Where were they in, in 2019 or 2020 when the court was discussing this.

Um, as a person who collected signatures for 7 months last year and for several months in 2024, and also paid attention during the, uh, the initial issuance of the ballot measure that gave us this travesty of ranked choice voting, we, uh, we did try to respond, but we were a little bit late in getting started. And, um, the irony of that is that it was sold to the Alaska people as getting rid of dark money. So in 2024, when I was collecting signatures, the people that rushed to my table to sign my signature book were very angry that they had been duped into voting for it under the guise of it getting rid of dark money when it in fact gave them ranked choice voting, which the thousands of people I've spoken with since absolutely hate it. And while I'm calling on my own behalf, I feel compelled to say that I'm also speaking for hundreds or thousands of other Alaskans who expressed to me while they were writing signatures in my books how much they hate rank choice voting. Another thing that is really kind of ironical is how they want people to be accountable for reporting their, their funds when we had $15 million flow into Alaska in 2024 to convince us that we love ranked choice voting.

And in fact, we only lost that initiative by 743 votes, I think the count was. So we came pretty close to getting rid of it. And a lot of people that I collected signatures from this last year thought we had gotten rid of it because when the voting was counted right then after Election Day, the initiative was winning. But as the votes kept coming in through the mail-in ballots, it ended up being that we lost by 743 votes. So they were shocked that it hadn't passed.

They said, I thought we got rid of this last time, when in fact we hadn't. So I just urge everybody to vote yes to get rid of this mess of ranked choice voting. Thank you. Thank you, Lynn, for your testimony. And last to testify is Christopher Rayner calling from Anchorage.

Christopher, are you with me?

I am, yes. Okay, please state your name and proceed. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, my name is Chris Rayner. I'm calling from Anchorage, Alaska on my own behalf, and I'm calling in support— oh, well, sorry, I'm calling in support of, uh, our dark money policies. So I'm calling in to oppose Ballot Measure Number 2. So one of the— I previously spoke about this, and one of the things I spoke about was that we have bundled several things together.

And I know that that is the way that the law was originally passed. However, there is absolutely no reason that all of those things need to be bundled together in the repeal. In 2024, the repeal did not touch our financial disclosure laws.

And if that had passed, we would no longer have ranked choice voting or open primaries, but we would still have our financial disclosure laws. This one does include our financial disclosure laws. And the difference is that in 2024, the ballot measure was organized by local Alaskans to oppose and repeal this. Phil Izon led that and championed it. And he will continue to champion efforts to repeal ranked choice voting.

He's made it his life's goal. The reason I bring that up is because it's outside money and, uh, that has come in and set up this campaign to repeal, uh, ranked-choice voting and our financial disclosure laws. And I really feel like they've baited a hook and they're trying to get us to take away our ability to see where the money's coming from. Um, I heard a lot of people say that they could not figure out how to use it. I was just checking it out myself while I was listening to that.

I had no trouble. Finding out where the money was coming from. I could find the PACs, and then I could very easily figure out who the top donors to those PACs were. So I think that that is working.

So the only reason I can think of that it would have been included when it wasn't included last time is because they're trying to get us to hurt ourselves, to blind ourselves. I know that ranked choice voting is unpopular, but I guarantee you that if you pass on repealing it this time, It'll be on the ballot again next time. The liaison will see to that.

Thank you, Christopher, for your testimony. I would like to note that it is now 4:23 PM, and since there are no remaining members of the public to testify, we will now conclude this public hearing. I'd like to thank all of those who have provided testimony today and to the the Legislative Affairs Agency staff for their great assistance. We appreciate them making it so easy for us. And all parties have spoken.

This hearing on Citizen Initiative 24, ESEG, is now adjourned. Thank you.