He's voting yes on Ballot Measure 2

Letter to the editor

Posted: Friday, July 28, 2006

Mr. Epperly claimed in his recent letter (July 19) that Ballot Measure 2 is unconstitutional because it dedicates funds, violates the single-subject rule and creates special legislation. The attorney general and lieutenant governor, after a thorough review, found Ballot Measure 2 to be consistent with state law and deserving of a chance to be adopted by a vote of the people.

Sound off on the important issues at

Ballot Measure 2 does not dedicate funds. In fact, it specifically states that dedication of funds will be accomplished by the state, with the proviso that federal law requires the funds be spent to service the cruise industry, i.e., the entity from whom they are collected. If Mr. Epperly were correct, hundreds of other state laws currently on the books would be equally unconstitutional.

Ballot Measure 2 does not violate the single-subject rule. Everything in Ballot Measure 2 relates directly to cruise ship activities and operations in Alaska.

Ballot Measure 2 does not create special legislation. If the initiative applied to Princess Cruises but not Holland America, it might be special legislation.

I have little doubt the cruise lines will challenge Ballot Measure 2 in court after it passes, just as they tried (unsuccessfully) to have Alaska's Superior Court and Supreme Court throw out the petition signatures. Until such time as a judge finds in their favor, I will trust the legal judgment of our attorney general and lieutenant governor. Ballot Measure 2 is legal and reasonable. I'm voting yes on 2.

Jeff Gnass


Trending this week:


© 2018. All Rights Reserved.  | Contact Us