Commonwealth North is Alaska's premier non-partisan public policy forum.
Join us to learn more about critical policy issues facing Alaska.
Commonwealth North's original "Shall There Be a Constitutional Convention?" report
Open the original report (PDF, 4 MB)
This web version was produced by machine from the original report so that it can be read and searched online. Tables, charts and photographs are not included, and older scans may contain small errors. The original PDF is the authoritative version.
Election Ballot General Election
NOVEMBER 2, 1982 STATE OF ALASKA
BALLOT PROPOSITION NO. 4
“Shall there
Constitutional Convention?”
YEs[_] NO[]
is this question
on the ballot
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. Article XIII, 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: ‘Shall there be a constitutional convention?’ If a majority of the votes cast on the question are in the negative, the question need not be placed on the ballot until the end of the next ten-year period...
This report was prepared by Commonwealth North to evaluate the pros and cons of holding 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, The intent is to educate ourselves and the public. No position is taken on the question of a constitutional convention.
October 4, 1982
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.
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, 1956.
What can a constitutional convention do?
A Alaska's Constitution gives
a convention 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 1992. 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.
Are 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 for a public vote. The November 2 ballot contains three constitutional amendments proposed by the legislature.
Have 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, Article XIII, Section 3, shall there be a constitutional convention?" It narrowly passed 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 general election in 1972. It was worded: "Shall there be a constitutional convention?" It
Shall there
be a Constitutional Convention?
We need to
constitution in light of the changes of the past 26 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 doubled; new economic and political interests have evolved. These basic chanenvisioned in 1956: limitations on state spending; subsistence tinued state borrowing, etc. In a society that has changed this much, there should be a presumption in favor of reviewing the basic law.
tion 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 the great changes expected in a new state. It is free of the special "solutions" that tie the hands of future leaders. It allows the legislature its choice of legitimate means in the development of public policy; establishes a strong, unified executive, and an independent, unified judition when we already have one of the best constitutions in the country.
NO There is only one reason to call a
constitutional convention —the need for major revision.
A constitutional convention is held for the purpose of making substantial changes to a 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 claim 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.
YES Alaskans are entitled to
evaluate the modifications made since Statehood.
In a real sense, the constitution of 1982 is not the constitution of 1956. Our constitution is constantly modified in its actual meaning by action of the 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.
YES 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 concensus, compromise, or at least a greater understanding for divergent positions.
NO 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 leadership is not something that can be amended in a constitutional convention. A constitutional convention is an extremely expensive, time-consuming, potentially 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 consti-
tution 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.
tution 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 an 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 12 constitutional conventions held in other states during the 1970's is clear: conventions produce many amendments. It is 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
reguires 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. Some 290 resolutions to amend the constitution have been introduced since Statehood. Only 23 have passed both houses of the legislature.
RESPONSE: the amendment pro-
cess has worked very well to change those provisions which the majority of the people want changed. In twenty-three years of Statehood, sixteen amendments -~ dealing with such basic issues as establishment of the 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 legislators to do what the majority want. It is true that some proposed amendments have failed repeatedly. It is not necessarblocking. It is possible that some ideas simply don't hold up under analysis. Many of these 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 23 times since Statehood. The concept of a unicameral legislature has been introduced 13 times. The legislature has continued to prevent a public vote on these issues even after both were approved by voters in statewide advisory referendums.
Alternative approaches to amending
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, whether there 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,
Tt is concluded that, regardless of the outcome of the election, all three concepts merit further consideration.
The Ww level review process in con une amendment
Constitution can. be ough “a» convention or el review process was
., time’ constraints citizen's. groups and of proposed amendment serene to bring their ae attention of approaches to al. “Amendment should cern. of safeguarding a is othe power he people to propose as ‘Alaska's Conrants the power to ain. types. of law by does not extend he process to constitutional aomendment. To do so would require 4 constitutional amendment.
: The principle argument in favor Of extending the initiative is that the process provides a means for: voters to modify a constitution when their legislature has. 705 responded to public requests.
“the principle argument against is that the initiative process eliinates the check and balance of -a@ two-level review. Initiatives -are both proposed, and directly “voted on, by the voters.
‘tis concluded that the initiative process, as it is presently set out to enact Alaska statutes, Should. not be extended to the constitution. However, further study might show that the concept Of. -constitutional initiative could provide an acceptable al- Retnative if sufficient restric- ae ensure adequate review.
Use of a Constitutional Revision Commission
Sion is a state agency charged “with: the responsibility of researching and preparing constitu- -tional amendments. These agen- —@les are being used, in one form
Sen a commission has one purpose
to improve the processes used: te amend. a state constitution. It studies both the need for, and effect of, amendments.
Its charge would be to hold public hearings; review areas of ~public.. interest; contract re- Search; draft and present pro- ture.:
Tt could, “for example ge directed. to research effect of various ways amen t by initiative might work, £ the concept. is from the pune control branch. One @ branch and _ members, 1 Revision = Co dates and statutes) ¢e the cere lature -for Constitution;:
not. “expected. hat every submitted to
objective would be £ d the public: and.: ~ the opportunity” and merits of proposals.
The mechanics of a constitutional convention
T£ 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 answers to these questions, the mechanics of planning a convention should one be called, is the responsibility of the legislature. 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 legis-— lation was never enacted because the convention was ultimately rejected, but the key areas of consideration of that bill have served as a guide for all subsequent proposed enabling acts.
The provisions summarized = and commented on here include the areas of consideration in HB 117. They are intended as discussion points if the voters approve a convention in November.
:: Setting the stage: _ the key provisions the basic’ law of the state, it is.
sible, focus. attention on convention by separating it provision: That the legislature - establish a Constitutional
Convention. Commission. to.
effective convention.
COMMENT: If. the voters. ap-_ prove a convention “on the Novem— ober. ballot, itis expected that. the next legislature. would pass. oethe enabling -statute.. and... the:
convention: would:’be convened in 1983...) This ‘leaves’ only: a. oshort. preparation times, Alaska's 1956.
constitutional convention <was.
thorough preparation. Other.
“states. having: successful conven-_
tions stress ‘the importance. of.
this.first:) step..::The:-primary duties of: the: commission would: be.
search; organize appropriate.
background material; and provide information: on request. a
-pRovision: That the election of
delegates take place at a special _ election and that such election — be nonpartisan in every respect. —
COMMENT: spue to: the:.singular importance of the ‘constitution as.
concluded. that. ‘the. enabling visions should; insofar’ as.
n-going political concerns.
“ should meet the > U.S.
ome court's one-man, one-vote eria to avoid challenge. It
-existing election districts that criteria.
isiOn: That the delegates aid the same travel and per as members of the legisla- e, but that they not be paid
CEE The goal of the -enng. ‘legislation should: be to ted.by. the desire for public ice than by the desire: fora visiQn: That the conven- be limited to 60 days, with blic hearings.
! It is considered
ative that any convention be
en a time frame within which
ork must be completed. The convention was given. 60.
including weekends ‘and ho
6; to draft. the. constitu
, plus a 15-day break to hold
c¢ hearings. If. the original
Commonwealth North is a non-profit corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Za.
Alaska. Non-partisan in nature, its purpose is to in- issues facing the state and the nation and prepare ject enlightened vitality into the world of commerce COMMONWEALTH and public policy. NORTH
Collins, Debra. “State Constitutional Development During 1981." National Civic Review. January
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,
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. Institute of Social and Economic Research. University of Alaska. 1982,
Meller, 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
Sturm, Albert. Thirty Years of Constitution-Making: 1938-1968. Virginia Center for Public Administration and Policy, 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.
action papers and reports.
The Commonwealth North The Commonwealth North BOARD OF DIRECTORS CONSTITUTIONAL: GUEST SPEAKERS CONVENTION CO-CHAIRMEN COMMITTEE ~ Commonwealth North William A. Egan wishes to thank the following Walter J. Hickel: CHAIRMEN _ guest speakers for presenting i Helen Fischer their views to the committee: PRESIDENT: Judge Ralph Moody SUBCOMMITTEE: Jack Coghill VICE PRESIDENT CHAIRMEN: Cliff Groh Millett Keller Carl Brady, Sr.: John Hellenthal Glenn Olds Rick Garnett Millett Keller Joyce Rivers Judge Thomas Stewart SECRETARY Irene Ryan: Dan Alex i Julius Brecht TREASURER: Bob Bulmer David Chatfield John Conway Carl F. Brady, Sr. Barbara Halcro Perry Eaton: Len McLean Helen Fischer 7 Ethel “Pete” Nelson Chuck Herbert: Ski Olsonoski Archbishop Francis Hurley Dr. David Outcalt Loren Lounsbury Gary Postlethwait Judge Ralph Moody Trances Smith Commonwealth North Paul Norgaard: Brian Tinker 935 West 3rd Avenue: Jerry Vaughan Anchorage, Alaska 99501 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Roger Weed Judith Brady: Dennis Wilt: (907) 276-1414
As well as providing a forum for national and international speakers, working committees study critical