►
From YouTube: House Elections & Campaign Finance Subcommittee - February 2, 2022 - House Hearing Room 2
Description
House Elections & Campaign Finance Subcommittee - February 2, 2022 - House Hearing Room 2
A
Welcome
members
and
guests
happy
groundhog's
day
as
well
good
morning
today
is
wednesday
february
22
february.
Second,
two
thousand
twenty
two.
I
hereby
call
the
subcommittee
on
elections
and
campaign
finance
to
order
roll
call.
Madam
secretary,
please
take
the
role.
A
Thank
you,
let's
see,
are
there?
Are
there
any
special
orders
before
we
begin
any
announcements
seeing
none?
Today
we
have
four
bills
on
the
calendar
leader
lambeth
is
presenting
another
committee.
He
has
to
be
rode
to
the
bottom
of
the
hill
and
representative
miller
is
is
not
here.
Rep
representative
host
call
is
entered
the
building,
and
so
is
mr
manus.
A
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
committee.
What
I'm
going
to
ask
you
to
do
today
is
because
to
consider
a
bill
that
will
eliminate
runoff
or
instant
runoff
as
an
appropriate
voting
method
here
in
the
state
of
tennessee
ranked
choice.
Voting
is
also
another
name
for
this.
The
same
type
of
voting
you
know,
there's
there's
a
lot
of
ideas
out
there.
Not
all
of
them
are
good,
and
I
kind
of
feel
like
that's
where
we
fall
on
this.
C
This
subject
matter
currently,
there's
only
one
jurisdiction
within
the
state
that
allows
this
and
it's
memphis.
Yet
there
is
some
conflicting
rules
with
regards
to
ranked
choice
voting
even
in
shelby
county,
since
they
have
now
passed
a
resolution
and
we
had
on
a
referendum
that
elections
go
to
a
runoff
situation
in
shelby
county,
so
there's
even
conflict
within
memphis,
and
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
to
add
clarity
to
this
this
process.
C
For
those
of
you
who
may
have
not
been
exposed
to
the
conversation
about
rank
choice
voting,
it
involves
a
situation
where
voters
are
asked
not
only
to
vote
for
the
candidate
of
their
choice,
but
they're
also
to
vote.
Ask
to
vote
for
the
candidate
their
second
third,
fourth
or,
however,
many
choices
that
there
are
on
the
ballot
we
find
this
to
be
in.
C
In
my
eyes,
it
seems
to
be
a
situation
to
where
voters
are
disenfranchised
if
they
only
have
one
candidate
of
all
of
those
on
the
on
the
ballot
that
they
want
to
select,
because
they
say
that
you
have
you
have
these
candidates
and
you
four
of
them
absolutely
do
not
hold.
Let's
say
that
you
have
a
standard
for
your
candidates,
whether
it
be
a
stance
on
a
particular
issue.
C
If
you
have
five
candidates
running
for
a
seat
and
there's
only
one
that
meets
that
standard,
then
you
only
want
your
vote
counting
for
one
person,
because
the
other
four
don't
meet
that
standard.
Well,
what
happens?
Is
you
become
disenfranchised
in
a
ranked
choice,
voting
situation,
because
the
way
it
works
is,
as
you
rank
your
candidates
in
order
for
them
to
receive
the
proper
vote,
because
if
somebody
doesn't
have
50,
plus
1
50
plus
one
vote,
what
happens
is
the
person
who
came
in
last?
C
You
are
able
to
then
apply
their
votes
to
their
second
candidate,
and
so,
if
you
have
not-
let's
say
I've
got
examples
down
here,
but
but
so
as
candidates
are
eliminated
votes,
second
place
votes
go
and
then,
if
there's
not
somebody
with
50
plus
one,
then
the
lowest
person
their
votes
are
redistributed,
and
so
what
happens
is
people
who
don't
have
the
highest
vote?
Total
may
be
eliminated
from
a
situation
to
where
they
run
off,
but
mainly
the
voters
are
disenfranchised
because
they
only
voted
for
the
single
candidate
who
had
the
most
votes.
C
The
other
issue
that
it
brings
up
too,
is
voter
confidence.
Voter
confidence
these
days.
I
know
that
that
I'm
sure
y'all's
emails
are
much
like
mine.
A
lot
of
people
are
demanding
if
nothing
else,
more
simplicity
and
more
integrity.
In
voting
and
many
times
they
equate
that
to
more
simple
ways
of
casting
their
vote.
C
C
As
they
try
to,
if
they
decide
that
this
is
something
they
want
to
do
so
anyway,
I'm
just
wanting
to
calm
the
waters
and
say
you
know
what,
because
there's
been
a
number
of
jurisdictions
who
have
implemented
rank
choice,
voting
that
have
also
repealed
it.
This
again,
this
is
a.
I
think,
it's
interesting
to
note
that
this
bill
also
has
two
of
my
two
of
my
co-sponsors
are
from
across
the
aisle,
so
it's
a
bipartisan
bill
and
they're
from
shelby
county,
the
one
jurisdiction
that
has
this
in
place.
D
Thank
you
and
thank
you,
mr
sponsor,
for
bringing
this.
However,
I
I
guess
I
must
have
got
the
folks
who
want
it,
because
I've
had
several
phone
calls
and
emails
about
frank
choice.
Voting,
and
one
of
the
points
they
made
was
that
this
was
a
court.
Is
this
a
court
case
in
progress
in
memphis
right
now.
C
C
C
C
Part
of
it
was
because
of
the
implications
to
the
shelby
county
election
commission,
the
machines
and
equipment
that
they
had,
but
then
in
february
2018
the
memphis
city
council
voted
11-2
to
schedule
a
referendum
vote
on
the
use
of
ranked
choice.
Voting
in
city
council
elections
and
voters
rejected
the
measure
to
strip
instant
runoff
from
the
city
council,
but
the
shelby
county
election
commission
has
reeled
that
they
would
not
argue
against
mr
goin's
ruling
on
it
at
this
point
and
so
now
there's
a
administrative
hearing
to
appeal.
C
C
E
C
None
that
I
would
espouse
representative
love,
I
think
the
when
you
say
I
think
that
they're
more
esoteric
in
nature,
because
the
when
you
hear
an
advocate
for
it,
they
say
that
this
this
requires
people
to
reach
more
towards
the
middle
ground
and
that
it
makes
more
candidates.
C
I
guess
the
other
issue
might
be
the
fact
that
hey
there's
the
lack
of
a
runoff
election
means
that
more
people
participate
in
the
election
itself
than
maybe
on
a
runoff.
C
But
again
my
point
there
is
that
if
you
hold
that
one
candidate
is
far
and
above
better
than
everybody
else-
and
you
don't-
you
don't
want
to
have
any
of
your
vote
credit
going
to
someone
who
doesn't
espouse
the
beliefs
that
you
want,
then
your
vote
is
you're
disenfranchised
because,
as
the
process
begins,
if
there's
not
a
majority
winner,
then
people
are
selecting
the
candidate
without
your
participation.
So
I
don't
really
buy
the
fact
that
it
helps
participation
in
elections
it
actually
by
its
very
nature,
sometimes
when
they
call
say
that
the
votes
are
retired.
C
That
means
that
nobody,
because
you
can
only
vote
for
out
of
if
there's
five
candidates
or
whatever
you
can
vote
for
only
two,
but
once
those
two
candidates
have
gone
through
the
cycle
and
you
don't
have
a
majority
winner,
then
your
vote
is
retired
and
you're
not
participating
in
the
election
from
that
point
forward,
and
so
that's
my
problem
with
this
with
this
issue.
The
other
thing
is
that
it.
C
The
elections
from
across
the
country
that
that
has
happened
in
to
where
you're,
basically
as
opposed
to
having
two
candidates
and
then
selected
for
runoff,
where
somebody's
going
by
50
plus
one
you
wind
up
with
somebody
winning
with
44
percent
and
and
that
that
to
me
is
not
something.
I
think
that
we
should
consider.
F
C
Elections,
I
think
that
depends
on
how
many
you
you
know.
I
think
that
when
you
start
doing
that,
you
have
to
say
well
how
many
runoffs
are
we
going
to
have?
How
do
we
fund
them?
What's
that
total
going
to
be,
you
know
that,
with
ranked
choice,
you
are
going
to
have
an
investment
in
equipment,
software
that
type
of
thing
and
voter
education,
and
so
what
how
you
compare
the
cost
of
having
runoff
voting
having
a
runoff,
it
may
be
different
based
upon
different
jurisdictions.
F
And
I
guess
I'm
just
asking
from
this
perspective
that
rank
choice
voting
essentially
decreases
the
amount
of
time
between
the
initial
vote
and
possibly
you
having
to
come
back
at
a
later
date
for
a
runoff
vote
and
the
expense
I
think
of
having
to
campaign
for
that
next
runoff
election.
Is
that
correct.
C
C
I
tend
to
be
pretty
good
at
math
and
I
had
to
study
this
thing
for
a
while
before
I
even
understood
why
I
did
not
like
it
and
because
of
it
came
to
me
pretty
quickly
after
I
studied
it
and
said
well
wow,
if
only
one
candidate
meets
my
my
bar
for
the
merit
of
my
vote,
and
I
only
vote
for
one
candidate,
I'm
going
to
become
irrelevant
pretty
quickly
as
this
cycles
through
as
the
second
place.
Third
place.
Fourth
place
candidate
is
starting
to
transfer
votes
up.
The
line
to
these
other
people.
A
F
F
My
second
choice-
and
here
is
my
third
choice,
and
so
that's
that's
what
I'm
struggling
with
with
with
what
you're
proposing
and
I'm
I'm
also
leaning
to
say
well,
if,
if
there's
a
court
case
out
there,
is
it
possible
just
let
that
case
go
ahead
and
run
its
course
before
we
take
that
choice
off
the
table.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you
sponsor.
C
C
What
we're
talking
about
is
is
taking
this,
taking
this
from
being
an
option
for
more
jurisdictions
across
the
state
and
to
your
point
about
getting
people
engaged
in
the
process.
C
And
so
I
think
that
while
there
may
be
the
convenience
aspect
of
it
may
be
the
it
may
be
the
the
shiny
object
on
this.
That
gets
our
attention.
C
I
don't
think
that
when
we
stop
and
really
consider
it
that
it
is
in
the
best
interest
of
the
voters
of
the
state
of
tennessee,
and
so
that
that
that's
my
you
know
in
in
this
case,
I'm
making
suggestions,
you
you
get
to
make
the
decisions,
but
that's
that's
my
position
on
it,
and
I
feel
strongly
enough
about
that.
I'd
like
to
that.
I
want
to
bring
this
legislation.
A
A
No
one
got
the
majority
and
there
was
an
incumbent
congressman
of
one
party
and
there
was
multiple
candidates
of
the
other
party
and
the
incumbent
lost,
because
he
he
didn't
get
a
majority
and
when
you
rank
all
the
rest
of
them
that
they
voted
for,
he
got
eliminated
and
it
kind
of
reminds
me
a
few
weeks
ago
I
was
judging
a
chili
contest
and
they
kept
tying
the
first
and
second
third
kept
tying
and
that's
kind
of
like
ranked
choice.
Somebody
we
had
to
go
back
and
check
and
go
down.
It
got
complicated.
A
We
had
to
go
down
and
check
who
voted
fifth
and
sixth
and
seventh
place
and
how
they
moved
to
find
out
who
the
winner
was
and
that's
kind
of
what
we're
doing
here,
and
but
I
want
it,
it's
confusing
and
it's
very,
very
complicated
how
they
choose
this
and
it
really
is
overly
complicated
for
an
election
process
with
no
runoff,
and
I
believe
next
on
the
list
was
chairman
williams.
A
Any
objections
question
on
the
bill,
seeing
none,
we
will
proceed
to
the
vote.
All
those
in
favor
of
the
bill
say:
aye
opposed,
nay,
the
hear
mouries
and
nays
the
bill
goes
on
to
full
local.
Thank
you.
A
next
up,
I
believe,
is
leader
lamberth
there
he
is.
We
have
a
motion
and
second
on
the
bill.
Hb
1708,
please
tell
us
about
your
bill.
E
Mr
chairman
and
members
of
committee,
thank
you
for
your
patience
earlier.
I
was
over
in
civil
justice
with
the
codification
bill,
so
I
apologize
for
being
a
little
bit
late
coming
in
today.
This
is
very
straightforward.
It
just
says
that
our
judicial
candidates
are
able
to
raise
money
personally.
Currently
they
have
to
have
a
barrier
between
them
and
anybody
that
they're
asking
for
funds.
E
It's
not
a
complete
barrier
because,
like
us,
they
review
their
disclosures
and
sign
them,
indicating
that
they
are
accurate
and
I'm
going
to
assume
most
of
these
judicial
candidates
actually
attend
their
own
fundraisers
without
a
blindfold
on.
So
this
last
barrier
is,
quite
frankly,
just
a
little
bit
ridiculous.
E
A
H
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
mr
chairman,
I
must
apologize
to
you
and
members
of
this
committee
no
excuses,
but
this
bill
actually
was
brought
to
me
by
senator
yarbrough
last
year
last
session,
and
so
as
of
last
thursday,
the
first
time
I
saw
it
again
and
noticed
this
bill
is
on
calendar
for
today.
A
H
An
amendment
and
and
and
normally
it's
it's
an
unwritten
rule
between
the
house
senate
members,
if
the
city
brings
it
to
me,
I
want
to
see
the
bill
move
in
the
senate
and
and
I'm
behind
it,
so
just
wanted
to
kind
of
put
that
out
there
but
house
bill.
1429
simply
requires
eligible
individuals
applying
or
renewing
their
driver
license
or
photo
identifications
to
be
automatically
registered
to
vote.
H
A
Let's,
let's
attach
the
amendment,
then
we
can
discuss
the
bill
as
amended.
I
believe
we,
the
amendment,
is
zero.
One
two
three
two
four.
A
All
those
in
favor
of
amendment,
please
say
aye
opposed,
nay.
The
amendment
is
attached
to
the
bill.
Please
tell
us
about
your
amended
bill.
H
A
Any
questions
on
the
bill.
A
Next
up
is
hb
1447
by
representative
miller.
I
believe
that
does
not
that's
carried
over
and
it
does
not
have
any
amendments.
This
is
carried
over
okay.
Yes,
please
tell
us
about
your
bill.
H
A
Of
movement,
here's
the
situation-
we're
in
this
is
the
third
calendar
of
this
bill
for
this
session.
When
it's
third
calendar
it's
third
time,
it's
been
on
the
calendar.
It
automatically
goes
regardless
of
our
action
here.
Unless
it's
passed
out,
if
no
action
is
taken
or
if
it's
voted
down,
it
automatically
goes
to
special
calendar,
and
if
it's
voted
down,
it
would
go
to
be
reconsidered
to
bring
it
back
on
special
calendar
now,
if
it's
voted
out,
it
would
go
on
to
local.
So
this
is
the
third
calendar
of
this
bill.
A
We've
we've
gone
over
them.
This
isn't
the
first
one
we've
gone
over
them
when
it's
third
calendar
it
automatically
goes
to
the
special
calendar,
attend
the
session.
Mr.
G
You
representative
miller
it
it.
In
essence,
what
happens
is
regardless
of
of
the
vote.
Today,
it's
going
to
go
on
a
special
calendar
which
will
be
at
the
end
of
the
calendar.
I
this
happened
to
me
as
well.
It's
it's
an
interesting
rule,
change
that
we
did
last
year
unless
it's
good
yeah,
unless
yeah
but
anyways.
I
think,
as
a
matter
of
reaching
across
the
aisle,
I
would
say
if
it
just
to
let
the
bill
go
to
special
calendar.
A
This
is
called
we
we
verified
this,
it's
it's
confusing.
I
even
asked
them
to
verify
it
in
clerk's
office,
it's
called
house
rule
83,
and
it
means
anything.
That's
on
third
calendar
unless
it's
voted
out
of
committee,
even
if
it's
voted
down
automatically
goes
to
special
calendar
and
at
the
special
calendar.
If
it's
a
bill,
that's
been
voted
down
in
committee,
then
the
majority
of
who
voted
it
out
who
voted
it
down.
The
committee
can
resurrect
it
to
hear
it
again
in
special
committee.