The ballot measure question is an automatic provision of the Alaska Constitution
that guarantees voters a chance to decide at least once every ten years (after the Census) if a constitutional convention should be held. Alaska is one of the few states that have this provision.
The League of Women Voters of Alaska (LWVAK) believes a constitutional convention is unnecessary, costly and has unintended consequences. We urge Alaskans to vote “NO”.
Unnecessary: A constitutional convention is unnecessary at this time. Although there are criticisms of government in Alaska, the problems are not with the Constitution but how it is implemented. While certain issues prompt intense public interest, a constitutional convention is NOT the best way to address these issues.
The Alaska Constitution is considered a “model” constitution nationwide. It is a flexible and concise document that can adapt to changing needs. IF constitutional changes are necessary, Article XIII of Alaska’s Constitution provides for two methods of amending the Constitution:
1. A resolution passed by a two-thirds vote of each house of the legislature which is then placed on the ballot of the next general election as a ballot measure. The ballot measure requires a majority vote for passage.
2. The legislature may call a constitutional convention at any time.
Of the various issues suggested as a reason for holding a constitutional convention, all can be accomplished through the amendment process, IF there is the political will to do so.
The Alaska Constitution has been amended 28 times as of 2006. Those amendments approved covered a wide variety of issues: residency, age, district and language requirements to vote, Commission on Judicial Qualifications, prohibition of sexual discrimination, right of privacy, limited entry fisheries, voting on constitutional amendments at general elections, authorizing the Permanent Fund, limiting appropriation increases and establishing a Budget Reserve Fund, among other issues. Twelve proposed amendments were rejected by the voters.
Costly: The cost of holding a constitutional convention has not been determined, but undoubtedly it would be large. Article XIII, Section 3. Call by Referendum, provides:
The appropriation provisions of the call for a convention shall be self-executing and shall constitute a first claim on the state treasury. (Emphasis added)
This means the cost of a constitutional convention takes precedence over funding of all other state functions, including public safety, education, fish and game management and other essential services.
Unintended consequences: A constitutional convention would have plenary powers to amend or revise our entire Constitution. Yes, the entire Constitution would be open to change. This could put our Constitution at risk with unlimited and unpredictable amendments being proposed by special interest groups.
The delegates to the 1955 Constitutional Convention were working towards a common goal of the establishment of a new state and how it would work. Today, with statehood well established, special interests for a myriad of causes would rule the day. Let us not sail into uncharted waters and run the risk of unnecessary changes to Alaska’s Constitution. We believe the potential losses would far outweigh any possible gains.
It is important to note voters chose not to hold a constitutional convention in 1972, 1982, 1992, and 2002. The ballot measures were defeated by large margins. In each of these elections, the LWVAK also opposed a constitutional convention. In 2012, we again oppose a constitutional convention. We urge you, the voters, to do the same.
VOTE “NO” on Ballot Measure #1 on Nov. 6th.
• Witt is President of the League of Women Voters of Alaska.
Comments (16)
Add commentOh, we need...
...a constitutional convention, alright. But not an Alaskan convention, a U.S. convention.
We need to fix our campaign financing flaws ASAP. Our democracy is for sale to the highest bidder. And increasingly that highest bidder comes from a tiny slice of the super-rich.
Additionally, the constitution needs to define what a 'person' is in this country. Obviously the court has taken leave of its senses when it can define a corporation as a person.
The rich still only get ONE
The rich still only get ONE vote, just like you, & me.
Unless you believe that you are to stupid to ignore radio, & t.v. adds, let free people, freely decide how to express them self's with THEIR money.
I would add...
...include congressional term limits in the constitution.
Alaskans are forced to keep reelecting Don Young, even though he has the worst attendance record in congress and oozes corruption, because he has seniority. He is no longer accountable to anyone.
Make the limit 9 terms in the House and 2 terms in the Senate. That totals 30 years for a full career, if they get elected for all of those seats.
madison - come on now....
clearly there are many, many people in the country who don't or can't ignore TV ads - which is why they are effective - which is why people do them in the first place - which is why it matters. Not to mention that contributions aren't limited to advertising - they can set up campaign offices, print literature, buy jet fuel and rent stadium space, etc. etc. etc.
I don't see how it's possible to believe that the money doesn't matter. You don't really believe that.
The AFN convention in
The AFN convention in Anchorage last week provided a very important item for constitutional discussion - provide a constitutional right for native elders to fish, regardless of resource management closures. I would expand this to all elders, not just native, for personal use.
As for a national constitutional convention, while there are many laudable suggestions, I find it difficult to believe that in today's politically divisive environment any of the necessary burdens would be overcome in order to pass a new amendment. The burden is necessarily very high, and only 17 times beyond the initial Bill of Rights has it been successful.
MADison is back!
More bile, illinformed opinions, and extreme right wing talking points for us!
Don't be a boor...
Don't be such a boor, El_Boorba. Your post is, without a doubt, acting as the gallbladder for this article. It contributes nothing to what's being said. Le
Lat, while I agree with you about what's wrong with our government, I vehemently disagree with the idea of holding a constitutional convention.
The original constitution was hammered out via extensive arguments between equals who were working toward a competent and enduring set of fundamental laws for themselves, by themselves. We don't have that anymore. We've become a deeply stratified society, and we're heading further into the rift all the time. Think about the number of castes developing throughout this country: we have castes of politicians, of entertainers, of drug dealers, or farmers, or doctors or . People tend to associate with those they consider to be like themselves, and their children have a leg-up into the family line of business. We're taking traditional tribal castes and organization and permutating it back to the future. If we had a constitutional convention, I have no doubt that we the people would leave today with a constitution where innocuous-seeming twists had been inserted that would result in the majority of us becoming churls within two-three generations.
We need to work on repealing the bad amendments, and overturning such idiocy as giving human rights and considerations to nebulous bits of financial cohesion that have no morals, no body, and most importantly, no mortality.
I take it back.
We're already mostly a nation of churls. "Fixing" our federal constitution would result in us becoming mostly a nation of serfs.
Peyton
Haven't those issues always existed? I mean, during the founding fathers time, they owned slaves and women couldn't vote. Nor could non-land owners.
How did we manage to hold other conventions successfully? Certainly there were "castes" in those times as well.
Your statement here: "If we had a constitutional convention, I have no doubt that we the people would leave today with a constitution where innocuous-seeming twists had been inserted that would result in the majority of us becoming churls within two-three generations."...has a lot of merit. Citizens United has some of its roots in the 14 Amendment, which granted black persons full citizenship. Left unchecked, our great grandchildren will indeed be enslaved with powerful interests controlling our government.
The problem is, if the SCOTUS makes a ruling based on its interpretation of the Constitution, isn't the only option to modify the constitution?
I agree, there is no urgent need for a State Constitutional
Convention warranting the free-for-all it will invite. The LWVAK's recommendation for a NO vote on Ballot Measure No.1 is a solid choice.
The idea of convening a U.S. Constitutional Convention actually raises my blood pressure just thinking about 535 Congressmen and their entourage pawing over my Constitution.
I agree...
No need for an Alaska Constitutional Convention. Our constitution is doing just fine, thank you very much. We (I) don't want it watered down, or assaulted by extremists from either party. It would be a dangerous endeavor and should be avoided except to fix an egregious error - of which I see none. It would also be fiscally irresponsible.
Ken
An Article V convention can be called by the legislatures of 34 states. Congress then has little control over the process when that happens. The resulting amendments would need to be ratified by 38 states.
This has never happened to date, but it came close in 1983 (during the Reagan era, mind you) when 32 states called for a balanced budget amendment.
A Convention is not the same as getting an Amendment passed,
such as the 21st repealing the 18th (prohibition).
A 'constitutional convention' opens the door where all of Congress may enter to write a new one or revise the one we have; a 'general convention' is called to create the first or entirely replace the existing one; then there are 'limited' and 'unlimited' conventions.
The President is the only one not invited to vote or veto.
The Citizens United ruling was based upon the 1st Amendment Free Speech clause, specifically "speaker-based" identification as a basis for limiting campaigns for the Presidency & Congress.
Congress will certainly be the one orchestrating the show here and the states will have a chance to ratify or not. I, personally, prefer not to leave my Constitution in the shop for 'repairs'.
That's one type
If 2/3 of the house and senate vote for a convention. But an Article V allows the states themselves to call it if 34 state legislatures apply. The states get to limit the scope of the convention to specific amendments. It's not a free for all.
Amending the constitution shouldn't be taken lightly, and there are plenty of checks and balances in place to make it difficult. Experience with the many state constitutions shows that the states don't experience free for alls either.
But a constitution isn't graven in stone by God. It needs to adapt to a changing world. Ours does.
As far as Citizens United, yes, it's a first amendment issue. But the reason a corporation is even considered a 'person' with constitutional rights is because of the distorted definition of personhood stemming from the fourteenth amendment.
Semantics. Do you honestly believe our career politicians are
going to give the "checks and balances" to the states?
This would be the ultimate Barnum & Bailey event. The President may not get an invite but this is something every lobbyist and special interest group has invested in for years to attend, and they don't need a vote.
Comparing State conventions with a U.S. Convention is not apples and oranges.
By the way, Amendments cannot be 'tweaked', they must be repealed in their entirety by new ones.
The Constitution...
...spells it out pretty clearly. If the states call for it, congress can't stand in their way. The SCOTUS would back that in short order.
Would it be a circus? No doubt. But the constitution has been amended many times in the past, and we had career politicians and special interest groups then, and the world didn't end.
Congress will not stand in their way.
Amendments have been introduced and passed since the Constitution's conception. You have suggested we hold a convention to address the Supreme Court's parochial Citizen United ruling regarding the 1st and 14th amendment.
I do not happen to believe this ruling reaches the level of national urgency warranting a rewrite of these two. The world will continue spinning.