Back 
Ballot Measure 2, which has been a political lightning rod in Juneau and Southeast Alaska this year, has been overwhelmingly defeated by voters, partial election results indicated Tuesday night.
As of press time, unofficial returns showed Measure 2, which would have re-created a coastal management program for Alaska, trailing badly at just 37.7 percent support, with 61.2 percent of precincts reporting statewide.
Supporters of the measure argued that the coastal management proposal was needed to give Native communities and others residing along Alaska’s coastline, the longest of any state, influence over offshore activity.
“I kept emphasizing that people should vote yes if they want a voice in the management of their own coast,” reported Terzah Tippin Poe, the Anchorage-based co-chairwoman of the pro-Measure 2 Alaska Sea Party, on the phone with Sea Party headquarters in downtown Juneau after polls closed at 8 p.m. Tuesday evening.
Measure 2 detractors generally argued that the ballot measure was vague and poorly defined, warning that it would add unnecessary and harmful bureaucracy, though many also suggested that the Legislature act to recreate a more faithful incarnation of the program that expired last year.
Although votes on ballot measures in Alaska are officially nonpartisan, many of Measure 2’s most visible backers during the campaign season, including Juneau’s mayor and Sea Party chairman Bruce Botelho, former Gov. Tony Knowles, and House Minority Leader Beth Kerttula of Juneau, are Democrats.
Kerttula and Sen. Dennis Egan, Juneau’s two Democratic members of its legislative delegation, both endorsed Measure 2.
Rep. Cathy Muñoz, the one Republican representing Juneau in the Alaska State Legislature, publicly opposed it.
Muñoz joined Juneau Economic Development Council board chairman and former Environmental Conservation Commissioner Kurt Fredriksson, as well as the Juneau Chamber of Commerce, the Anchorage Assembly and a number of industry groups, in urging voters to reject the measure.
“I think the citizens basically read the initiative,” said Fredriksson, who co-chaired the “Vote No on 2” campaign, by phone from Anchorage Tuesday night. “I think they heard both sides, and took the time to read the initiative, and came to the conclusion that this wasn’t really restoring the coastal management program.”
As returns came in showing Measure 2 well behind, several people at the Sea Party office in Juneau blamed the “mismatch” in financial resources between the measure’s backers and its opponents, who were running television ads against Measure 2 in the weeks leading up to Primary Day.
Botelho said he hopes the Legislature acts next year to enact a coastal management program, though he acknowledged the election results signaled “a rejection of our particular approach.”
“We are, of course, disappointed in the outcome. I think it’s important, though, to note that not only do we have the folks that voted for our initiative, but … many of our opponents argued that we needed a coastal management program,” Botelho said. “We stand ready to work with our opponents to find a viable coastal management program for Alaska.”
Fredriksson said he thinks the Legislature will take up the issue in its next session, and that he will be working to see “good features” from his time in Alaskan coastal management brought up for consideration.
“I think with the defeat of Ballot Measure 2, I think it puts it right back in the legislative court. I think that’s where the state policy needs to be debated and acted upon,” Fredriksson said. “Even as I spoke out against the measure, I always pointed out, you know, that I wanted to work with folks like Beth Kerttula and others.”
Meanwhile, the outcome of Ballot Measure 1, to increase the maximum property tax exemption that local governments can offer from $20,000 to $50,000, was too close to call as of press time, with 50.7 percent of voters registering “yes” votes for the measure, according to unofficial returns. That measure attracted little local attention in Juneau.
And in federal primary races, Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, the state’s sole representative to the United States House of Representatives, easily won his party’s nomination for what would be his 21st term in the House, batting aside two little-known primary challengers.
Democrats and Libertarians had a somewhat more competitive primary contest for Young’s seat, with state Rep. Sharon Cissna and small business owner Matt Moore, both Anchorage Democrats, appearing to be the leading candidates in a field of five Democrats and one Libertarian.
But despite Moore’s spending edge in the lead-up to the primary, Cissna appeared to have won a decisive victory. As of press time, unofficial returns showed her capturing 43.8 percent of the vote, with the remainder split between Moore and the other four candidates.
In Juneau’s legislative elections, both Kerttula and Muñoz were unopposed in their party’s primaries. Neither face a candidate in the Nov. 6 general election.
Egan’s seat will be up for election in 2014.
• Contact reporter Mark D. Miller at 523-2279 or at mark.d.miller@juneauempire.com.
Comments (72)
Add commentGood legislation doesn't have opponents
Politicians need to understand that. Good legislation stands on its own and is sensible enough that the majority will not oppose it. If you think you have an opponent - then your thinking too narrowly.
The fact is...
The fact is, there is no shortage of state bureaucracies to manage activities in coastal zones. Or mountain zones, or tundra zones, or any other zones for that matter. F&G, DEC, DNR, CCEC, DOA, DOTPF, Law, and Ofc of Governor, are all fully staffed with bureaucrats fully capable of suppressing any development as needed. If on the other hand, the state wants to promote a development and the feds become too overbearing, our bureaucrats are fully competent at going head to head with them. The Gov only needs to decide which one leads the charge. If Juneau needs more jobs it should focus on opening the AJ mine rather than re-creating another redundant bureaucracy. The voters never read the ridiculous wordy proposition but they understand these facts instinctively.
Thanks, coog, that's perhaps
Thanks, coog, that's perhaps the most cogent argument I've heard yet. Coastal zone management could have easily been passed, had they simply presented the plan everyone was used to. Instead, they wanted an unelected and unaccountable board to write the rules as they desired as they went. A large majority of voters thought that was unacceptable. But you are correct, there are plenty of agencies, both federal and state, to continue to look out for the interests of Alaska, both industrial and environmental.
@cooganalaska
Im sort of surprised Coogan would put a comment here but then again, not. Im sure they dont like the fact that they've come across public opposition to some of their development and would prefer the public have its voice silenced. Fact is that this measure had no chance of passing with the mining and oil industries spending their big wad of cash to seal its fate. There is also no shortage of these industries spending hords of money to silence the people's vote across the country. Good job Juneau, your vote says these industries should have more of a say than you do. Apparently companies like Coogan agrees. And dont forget to continue handing those subsidies over to these industries, afterall they need it desperately.
I have to laugh when a company like Coogan bemoans those "state bureaucracies"....one of the same government entities that they receive funding from for projects.
Predictable
BM2 was doomed from the get go, based as it was on an ill-conceived plan that attempted to make fundamental changes in the manner in which the coastal management program was administered. It didn't help that the Murkowski administration wrecked a program that was functioning pretty well but all the Coast Party had to do was more or less return to the status quo prior to Frank's reign.
The Sea Party didn't move to the obvious position that likely would have been accepted by the public. They then compounded their poor drafting with a lackluster campaign. The notion that there was a "mismatch" in funding between the proponents and opponents of BM2 and that this fact somehow made a difference ignores the fact that other ballot initiatives have easily passed in the face of gigantic funding, e.g., the 2006 cruise ship initiative.
Alaska needs a coordinated project review office for activities in our large coastal zone. Alaska should adopt a CZM plan that works for applicants, agencies, communities and the public in a straightforward and timely manner. BM2 didn't meet those objectives and that is why, not money, the measure went down in flames.
akjim,
"Instead, they wanted an unelected and unaccountable board to write the rules as they desired as they went."
How is this different from the one "everyone wanted"? That's the important point you need to take away. The differences the opponents cite and the arguments for not supporting them do not jive with the facts. The truth is, the No on 2 party does not want a coastal management plan, as coogan suggests.
Pro developers don't want the possibility of more government obstruction getting in their deep pockets. How do you think we lost the one we had? Who do you think pushed it off the cliff? The same people who say "We want a coastal management plan, just not that one."
Well, no, you don't want a coastal management plan. You don't want this one and you sure as hell didn't want the one we had. So quit lying to the public and tell the truth for once. It's getting annoying listening to these tired out soundbites
"Coastal zone management could have easily been passed, had they simply presented the plan everyone was used to."
So how'd we lose the one we all supposedly wanted just didn't know how much until we lost it? We may never get another management plan, and those who say "We want one, just not this one," are just fools.
poofy
Four words..."jeez cheezy, be quiet!
Coastal plan redundant
Coastal plan redundant bureaucracy?
I don't consider - reviews by locals - redundant bureaucracy.
The truth is Alaska may not see a coastal management plan now. This is just what Sean Parnell and his friends all conspired for
" If Juneau needs more jobs
" If Juneau needs more jobs it should focus on opening the AJ mine rather than re-creating another redundant bureaucracy" Coogan Construction.
I beg to differ with Coogan. I say when Juneau needs more jobs then we need focus on jobs for people that are above the ground. Thank you very much!
Poofy must have really gotten
Poofy must have really gotten brain rot from yesterday's rain. Lighten up, girl, before you have a stroke. We're allowed to have an opinion, too.
I love it when these self enlightened fools try to put words in other people's mouths. Poof, you're simply wrong about what I think. You clearly either have severe reading comprehensive problems you simply cannot contain your blathering.
Blame this.Blame that.
The fact is that Slick Tony,Beth,Bruce and all their greenie lib pals didn't fool the average Alaskan with their distorted view of management.
We ain't buyin' what you're selling, bruce.
I did not vote yesterday,
I did not vote yesterday, sorry to say . I thought this would pass with no problem. Most of the people I spoke with yesterday felt the same way. Ugh. This is just horrible. I heard it was record low turn out.
akjim,
arguing with you is literally banging one's own head against a wall. And in fact doing so would be more productive, but I'll go ahead and try banging my head some more in a futile attempt to introduce some reason to your shortsighted opinion.
"Poofy must have really gotten
Poofy must have really gotten brain rot from yesterday's rain. Lighten up, girl, before you have a stroke. We're allowed to have an opinion, too.
I love it when these self enlightened fools try to put words in other people's mouths. Poof, you're simply wrong about what I think. You clearly either have severe reading comprehensive problems you simply cannot contain your blathering."
If you really think my reading comprehension is lacking, why don't you ever both to discuss the claims you make? I reply to your posts, but you don't have the common decency to return the favor. I requested a simple clarification to your outrageous claims. You failed to do so. Either your reading comprehension is truly lacking, or you don't have the slightest clue as to how you argue the claims you make.
We have a lot of room on thees message boards to introduce details and when necessary, facts to back them up. You don't take advantage of this, however.
You claim the prop 2 iniative would introduce an "unelectable, unaccountable board" and some how it's different than the CZMP in place for decades. My request was for you to provide an example of how the initiative's board was different from the last. The fact is that the only difference is the number of board members. The board is still locally elected and administration approved.
You suggest we don't need more government regulation, but then you contradict this statement with a notion that you support the old plan. How can you make such conflicting arguments with no clarification? I am asking you to clarify. How is it so difficult, and where do you get the idea that my reading comprehension is lacking? Either you aren't the smartest peanut in the turd, or you don't have any argument. I am betting on the latter, but you can clarify this if you would like.
wavemkr,
"The fact is that Slick Tony,Beth,Bruce and all their greenie lib pals didn't fool the average Alaskan with their distorted view of management.
We ain't buyin' what you're selling, bruce."
Could you be anymore general and full of [filtered word]?
Legislative Inaction?
The first thing I look for in ballot proposals is an explanation of Why is this not being handled in the Legislature? which as here almost never addressed which is why I usually vote no.
Proposal drafters write that down. Whats going on. Why are you here.
Oh, can we please vote for Federal Legislators for some other reason than greed supported seniority. Politics was, & should continue today as not ever intended to be a lifetime job.
Hmm...
"Instead, they wanted an unelected and unaccountable board to write the rules as they desired as they went."
So I would expect to find akjim and others working hard to dismantle the Board of Game, the members of which are unelected and unaccountable as well. But of course not. The difference is that the BOG is ultra-conservative, while people feared that such a board under Measure 2 would have had different values.
Salmon returns were dismal
Salmon returns were dismal this year.
How will not having a costal management plan help?
States and Territories
States and Territories Working on Ocean and Coastal Management
Click on a state or territory below to see what we're doing to manage "your state's" oceans and coasts.
http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/mystate/welcome.html
Really?
We all knew this was going to go down this way, given the voter turn out and the arm twisting of big business. How many fish runs need to die off before we realize that more environmental efforts need to be made?
Hooray!
Glad it was voted down as it was quite deceitful as it did NOT have the Native community's best interests at heart as the article stated.
A 'Phoenix' will rise from the ashes of this failed initiative.
Let's rebuild, collaboratively, to make this happen. Harping on what has failed is not productive.
sheeeeesh,
"Hooray, Glad it was voted down as it was quite deceitful as it did NOT have the Native community's best interests at heart as the article stated."
More general nonsense... hooray? For what? Why would native corporations back prop 2 if they felt it was not in their best interest? Who told you the native communities would not be represented? The whole point of the management program is to settle disputes between locals, government policies, and developers' plans.
So, specifically, how would prop 2 have neglected native communities? Hooray... for not understanding the bill and voting against it? That's pathetic.
ken dunker,
I struggle to have the same level of faith as you... especially judging by the content of those commenting on the numerous articles in JE. There was never a detailed discussion on this message board, just a bunch of talking points made accessible by the disprportionate funding on the opposing side.
When the prop 2 supporters corrected these fibs, no one accepted it, or bothered to research it. It still came down to more people taking television ads and opinion articles made more accessible by one group over the other.
The legislature is not trustworthy, as we all know the outcome of their hard work... this was a chance to correct their mistakes. We all failed.
Cheesy: This is a blog. It is not the media nor does it reflect
a consensus of the citizenry (yet). I would point out that 'jamison', among others, had articulated the finer points (sections) of the initiative, and did it well.
@fromdust
Yes, I actually would promote the dismantling of that board. It and others, such as the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, are excellent examples of boards with agendas focused on a single group, not the betterment of Alaska as a whole. Thank you for making point so well. The Prop 2 board would have become just another ideologically driven board of unaccountable appointees. What further amazes me is that all the libs on here seem to be perfectly willing to allow Parnell, apparently the oil devil incarnate, to initially appoint the board members. Fortunately, more than 60% of those Alaskans dedicated enough to vote understood the risks.
Your further insinuations are simply stupid.
May I present one simple solution to the 'unaccountable'
argument regarding a 'board' of trustees appointed by the Governor to protect and develop our coastlines.
Let's elect them.
It's not like the Lt. Governor is overworked here.
I am sure the League of Women Voters could 'step it up'.
Jim~
Most excellent. What would you consider a reasonable format for a Board of Game? If the current framework is untenable and skewed, what would you see as a viable alternative?
The same type of people that
The same type of people that couldn't pull together and figure out what's best for Alaska was behind both sides of this vote. Was anyone really surprised that the same thing happened? If our low number of elected officials couldn't debating intelligently and do what's best for alaska then how would the tens of thousands that voted be able to do any better? This was like an appeal in court. One side didn't like how the result was so they tried again. I'm honestly surprised any of us thought that the results would have been different.
The system is breaking. Those of you that pick sides and blame everyone else for America's problems are not helping either. Until we acknowledge that America has infinite opinions and there is no one way that's best we will keep spinning backwards. The best thing is compromising and findin middle ground. Like a relationship. Our system is like a relationship where one side is abusive and the other one cheats and the kids are watching and learning.
These forums remind me how passionate and diverse we all are. I remember my history class where I was taught that was a good thing. These forums also remind me to use the word respect a lot more with the kids. Maybe we could try that for a change, instead of breeding hate. Just because someone disagrees with you doesnt make them wrong.
Furthermore, let the board members elected serve a term
equivalent to the average permit process.
@fromdust
Frankly, I've not given it much thought. Dunker may be on to something, though. Judges are mostly appointed, but they keep their positions though what are essentially confidence votes. While they are typically reelected, it does work as a last ditch effort. Limiting term lengths may help as well.