Shall there be a
Election Ballot
GENERAL ELECTION NOVEMBER 3, 1992 STATE OF ALASKA
BALLOT PROPOSITION NO. Constitutional Convention Question
is this question on the ballot November 3?

Alaska's Constitution requires that at least once every ten years the public will have the opportunity to decide whether or not a constitutional convention is necessary. Arcticle XI, Section 3 provides:

If during any ten-year period, a constitutional convention has not been held, the Lieutenant Governor shall place on the ballot for the next general election the question: are inthe negative, the question need not be placed on the ballot until the end of the next ten-year period...

A Commonwealth North Report

This report was originally prepared in 1982 by Commonwealth North to evaluate the pros and cons of halding a constitutional convention; to prepare recommendations as to the mechanics of a convention should one be held; and to identify alternative methods of amending Alaska's Constitution. In review, little need for change was noted. The report has stood the test of time and merits serious consideration and study as we approach the 1992 election. The intent is to educate ourselves and the public. No position is taken on the question of a constitutional convention.

August 20, 1992

What is the purpose of a constitution?

A It sets out the basic philosophy, policy, and framework of government; the mechanics of who does what; and the powers, restraints, relationships, and limits of government.

Q When was Alaska's Constitution drafted? A Fifty-five delegates drafted our constitution two years before Statehood during the original 1955-56 convention. The National Municipal League termed it "one of the best, if not the best, state constitutions ever written." It was ratified by the voters April 24,

What can a constitutional convention do?

A Alaska's Constitution gives a con-

vention plenary power, which means the power to propose amendments to the entire constitution. Proposed amendments must be submitted to the public for approval.

What if the voters decide against a convention?

A If no convention is called within the next ten years, the question will be placed on the ballot again in 2002. The legislature has the authority to call a convention at any time.

What if the voters decide to have a convention?

A Delegates will be elected at the next statewide election, unless the legislature calls a special! election before then. The legislature will determine the details of the convention, such as the opening date, number of delegates, etc.

Qs there other ways to amend our constitution?

A The legislature can propose amendments to the constitution by a two- thirds vote of each house. The proposed amendment then is placed on a ballot fora publicvote. Thirty-one proposed Constitutional amendments have appeared on the ballot; twenty-two have been approved by the voters.

Qe Alaskans voted on this question before?

A Yes. In 1970 the question was placed on the ballot as follows: "As required by the Constitution of the State of Alaska, Arcticle XIll, Section 3, shall there be (34,911 to 34,472). However, a suit was filed on the grounds that the wording implied that the constitution required a convention. The court threw out the election results and the question was placed on the ballot at the next there be a constitutional convention?” It was

Shall there Constitutional Convention?

We need to

constitution in light of the changes of the past 36 years.

Radical changes have occurred in Alaska since the constitution was drafted: vast wealth is at the disposal of the State government; the population has more than quadrupled; new economic and political interests have evolved. These basic changes limitations on state spending; subsistence rights; the propriety of continued state borrowing, limitations on elected terms of office, etc. In a society that has changed this much, there should be a presumption in favor of reviewing the basic law.

N QO Alaska's Constitution sets out a strong, vital framework for our state government.

Our constitution is one of the shortest and most flexible in the United States, designed to allow for great changes expectedinanew state. Itis free of the special "solutions" that tie the hands of future leaders. It allows the legistature its choice of legitimate means in the development of public policy; establishes a strong, unified executive, and an independent, unified judiciary. We don't need a convention when we already have one of the best constitutions in the country.

N There is only one reason to calla

constitutional convention --

the need for major revision.

A constitutional convention is held for the purpose of making substantial changes toa State's constitution. A convention only becomes necessary after it has been decided that large portions of a constitution are outdated or restrictive. There has been no hard evidence that Alaska's Constitution needs major revision. The call for a convention comes from individual groups advocating individual changes. Individual changes are made through the normal amendment process, not through a convention.

YE Alaskans are entitled to

evaluate the modifications made since Statehood.

In a real sense, the constitution of 1992 is not the constitution of 1956. Our constitution is constantly modified in its actual meaning by action ofthe judicial, legislative, and executive branches of government. The Alaska judiciary has the obligation to interpret the constitution. The legislature and executive also make decisions with constitutional implications that are not always challenged in the courts. Whether these modifications are "right" or "wrong" is certainly a matter which the people are entitled to evaluate.

' / EK A convention would provide

new leadership, foster greater understanding

A convention would be healthy for Alaska at this time, focusing attention on the basic legal structure and attracting community leaders who do not have time to consider legislative service. It could generate a new reservoir of leaders of great value to the state and provide a forum for broad discussion of those issues that now divide Alaska, leading to consensus, compromise, or at least a greater understanding for divergent positions.

N A constitutional convention is not a remedy for weak leadership.

Many of the problems facing Alaskans today are not the result of an improperly drafted constitution, but simply the failure of the executive and legislative branches to function properly in some areas. Weak leaderaconstitutional convention. A constitutional convention is extremely expensive, timeconsuming, and apotentially disruptive event. It is worthwhile only if the constitution needs major revision. When a convention is not necessary, it simply endangers the integrity of a constitution to no purpose.

What's being said in debate...

CON POSITION: Alaska doesn't need a convention, we already have a model constitution.

OBJECTION: Alaska's Constitution is indeed a model, but it does not follow that it cannot be improved. Any legal system, however admirably conceived, is subject to improvement based on experience with its actual operation. Our constitution was drafted before Statehood. Today we need to evaluate it, not as a matter of theory, but on the basis of performance.

RESPONSE: Alaska's Constitution was designed to take advantage of the experiences of the other states. It is used as a guide for states now modernizing their constitutions because it is a "model" in the sense of best-of-the-line, rather than in the sense of antique. It can be, and has been, improved through the amendment process, but it is not in need of the massive revisions that make it necessary to call a convention.

PRO POSITION: A convention does not necessarily mean massive revision of our constitution.

OBJECTION: The calling of a convention opens our entire constitution to revision. Under Alaska's Constitution, a convention has plenary power -- power to propose changes to the entire document. The public does have the final vote, but the lesson of the 17 constitutional conventions held in other states during the 1970's and 1980's is clear: conventions produce many amendments. Itis almost impossible for anyone to make an informed vote when faced with ballots filled with amendments.

RESPONSE: The calling of a constitutional convention would not represent "an attack” on the present constitution. Since the public has to ratify all proposed amendments, a convention would only result in changes deemed beneficial by the majority. Features of the constitution which have demonstrated their viability should remain untouched. The purpose of a convention is simply to review and make recommendations as to whether specific changes could be made to improve the operation of state government.

CON POSITION: We already have an amendment process for the changes needed.

OBJECTION: The constitution requires approval of two-thirds of the legislature before a proposal is submitted to the people. This requirement may pose an inordinate barrier to implementation of needed measures. More than 500 resolutions to amend the constitution have been introduced since Statehood. Only 31 have passed both houses of the legislature and appeared on the ballot.

RESPONSE: The amendment process has worked very well to change those provisions which the majority of the people want changed. In 33 years of Statehood, 22 amendments -- dealing with such basic issues as establishment ofthe Alaska Permanent Fund, the right of privacy, limited entry in fisheries -- have been ratified by the voters. This process is designed to pass needed amendments, not adopt every resolution ever made.

PRO POSITION: The legislature will not reform itself. Reform amendments will only come out of a constitutional convention.

OBJECTION: Legislators are elected by the people. To say that the legislature will not reform itself, is to admit that the people cannot elect legisiators to do what the majority want. It is true that some proposed amendments have failed repeatedly. It is not necessarily true to conclude unreasoned blocking. It is possible that some ideas simply don't hold up under analysis. Many ofthese repeat proposals were also debated and voted down by the 1956 convention.

RESPONSE: The legislature consistently blocks proposed amendments that restrict its powers or affect its structure. Amendments to limit the length of the legislative session have been introduced 24 times since Statehood. Such an amendment finally passed in 1983 and was ratified by voters in 1984. The concept of a unicameral legislature has been introduced 14 times. The legislature has continued to prevent a public vote on these issues even after both were approved by voters in statewide advisory

Alternative approaches to amending Alaska's Constitution

There are two questions which must be considered apart from the issue of whether or not a constitutional convention is necessary at this time: first, whether the amendment process Alaska has now can be improved; and second, whetherthere are other methods of amendment which might merit study.

In pursuing these questions, three concepts were explored: use of the initiative for constitutional amendment; use of a Constitutional Revision Commission; and use of a legislative standing committee.

It is concluded that, regardless of the outcome of the election, all three concepts merit further consideration.

The mechanics of planning a constitutional convention

If a convention is called, when will it start...how many delegates...how long will it last? These questions are of interest regardless of whether a voter is in favor of, or opposed to, a convention.

The mechanics of planning a convention, should one be called, are the responsibility of the legisiature. Convention legislation has been considered in the past, particularly in 1970 when Governor William Egan introduced House Bill 117 in response to a constitutional vote. The legislation was never enacted because the convention was ultimately rejected, but the key considerations of that bill have served as a guide for all subsequent proposed enabling acts.

The provisions summarized andcommented HB 117. They are intended as discussion points if the voters approve a convention in November.

ION: That 65 delegates be _

NT: The election of delegates i

ary to have a special appor-

ricts. meet that criteria.: ON. ‘That the delegates be be ‘paid a salary.

The goal of the enabling oe

attracted by the desire for public in by the desire for a winter job.

ION: That the convention be a. 60 days, with the option to 5 days of public hearings.

NT: It is considered imperative =. onvention be'given a'time frame. -

5 convention was given 60 days, weekends and holidays, to draft itution, plus a 15-day break to hold. arings. If the original constitution: drafted within that time frame, the uld take no longer, It would also te in drawn- out conventions.

ricts, plus five at-large. ad

the U.S. Supreme Court'sonevote criteria to avoid challenge. to cdl same travel and per diem as f the legislature, but that a ould be to seek delegates who its work must be completed.

2d that a firm 75 day limit would = ommunity leaders who could not

BIBLIOGRAPHY Collins, Debra. “State Constitutional Development During 1981." National Civic Review. January (1982). 28-32.

Fischer, Victor. “A New Constitutional Convention for Alaska? The Lessons of Hawaii 1978." Prepared for the Interim Committee on the Constitutional Convention of the Alaska State Legislature. March 10, 1980.

Fischer, Victor. Alaska's Constitutional Convention. Institute of Social, Economic, and Government Research, University of Alaska. University of Alaska Press. 1975.

Harrison, Gordon. A Citizen’s Guide to The Constitution of the State of Alaska. nstitute of Socia) and Economic Research. University of Alaska. 1982.

May, Janice. “State Constitutions and Constitutional Revision: 1988-89and the 1980's." The Baok of the States 1990-91. County State Governments.

Metler, Norman, et. al. "The Hawaii Constitutional Convention - 1978." National Civic Review, vol. 69, No.5. (1980). 248-257. Sturm, Albert. “State Constitutional Developments During 1980.” National Civic Review. January (1981), 28-32.

Sturm, Albert. Thirty Years of Constitution Making: 1938-1968. Virginia Center for Public Administration and Policy, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. National Municipal League. New York.

Van Doren, Guy. "Constitutional Amendments Introduced in the Legislature from 1960 to 1979." Prepared for the interim Committee on the Constitutional Convention of the Alaska State Legislature. January 11, 1980.

Van Doren, Guy. “State Constitutional Conventions in the 1970's." Prepared for the Interim Committee on the Constitutional Convention of the Alaska State Legislature. January 11, 1980.

“Questions and Answers about the 1970 Constitutional Convention Referendum.” League of Women Voters of Alaska. 1970.

Commonwealth North is a non-profit corporation, organized and

As wellas providing aforumfor national and international spaakers, existing under the laws of the State of Alaska. Non-partisan in COMMONWEALTH working committaes study critical issues facing the state and the nature, its purpose is to inject enlightened vitality into the world of nation and prapare action papers and reports. cornmerce and public policy. NORTH The Commonwealth North 1982 Commonwealth North BOARD OF DIRECTORS CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION COMMITTEE FOUNDING CO-CHAIRMEN MEMBERS CHAIRMEN MEMBERS The Late William A. Egan Bill Allen’ Helen Fischer Dan Alex Walter J. Hickel Jane Angvik Judge Ralph Moody Julius Brecht Robert B. Atwood Bob Bulmer PRESIDENT Skip Bithartz SUBCOMMITTEE John Conway Richard F. Barnes William Bittner CHAIRMEN Michael Droege Janna Brattain Carl Brady, Sr. Barbara Halcro Judith M. Brad Robert Hatfield Judge J. L. McCarrey Ethel “Pete” Nelson Perry Eaton Joe L. Hayes Joyce Rivers Ski Olsonoski Archbishop Francis Hurley GUEST SPEAKERS Rose Palmaquist Marc Langland Edgar Boyko Gary Postlethwait SECRETARY Loren H, Lounsbury Jack Coghill Frances Smith TREASURER Governor William Sheffield Millett Keller Roger Weed Michael E. Stone William J. Tobin Steve McCutcheon Dennis Wilt Dr. F. Thomas Trotter Judge Thomas Stewart Bill Woodland

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Thomas A. Wilson li

Commonwealth North 935 West 3rd Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Judith M. Brady

1992 Commonwealth North CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN Loren H. Lounsbury

MEMBERS Julius Brecht John Conway Evan “Joe” Griffith Archbishop Francis Hurley Jeff Lowenfels Sig Murphy Joyce Rivers