Critics: Vote wastes money

Jan. 7, 2007

By Russell Stigall/Frontiersman

JUNEAU - Critics of a planned advisory vote about court-ordered benefits for same-sex partners of state workers say the April balloting is a waste of time and money.

Michael McLeod-Ball, of the Alaska Civil Liberties Union, said regardless of the vote's outcome, the minds of legislators will not be changed - at least not enough to achieve the two-thirds majority vote needed to amend Alaska's Constitution.

Rep. Les Gara, an Anchorage Democrat who is a critic of the planned vote, agreed.

&#8220It's not going to happen,” he said.

However, one legislator who might be swayed by the vote is Valley Rep. Mark Neuman, a Big Lake Republican.

&#8220It would certainly send a strong message to me,” Neuman said, &#8220if that is what the people say they want, that is who I work for.”

During a November special session of the Legislature to deal with the court order, a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited extension of these benefits was not even considered because votes were lacking to pass it.

Passed in the House and Senate during the November special session, House Bill 4002 set the wording for the April vote.

&#8220Shall the Legislature adopt a proposed amendment to the state Constitution to be considered by the voters at the 2008 general election that would prohibit the state, or a municipality or other subdivision of the state, from providing employment benefits to same-sex partners of public employees? Yes or No.”

Mat-Su legislators who were present for the session voted for the bill unanimously.

In the House, Rep. Carl Gatto, R-Palmer, Rep. Vic Kohring, R-Wasilla, Rep. Bill Stoltze, R-Chugiak/Mat-Su, were all yeas. In the Senate, Sen. Lyda Green, R-Mat-Su, and Sen. Charlie Huggins, R-rural Mat-Su, voted for the bill. Neuman was absent.

The advisory vote, intended to give legislators a look into the minds of Alaskans concerning the extension of benefits to same-sex couples, will carry no legal weight. It is intended to change the political dynamic, McLeod-Ball said.

And that is because it is forcing a vote on a date when only Anchorage has a scheduled election. The vote is tailored to influence Anchorage municipal elections. The goal by some on the conservative side may be to get the vote out for their base, Gara said.

&#8220Personally, I believe it is political,” he said.

Along with being suspect in its motive, the vote will also be expensive.

Forcing the date so the vote will only coincide with Anchorage elections raises its price to $1.2 million, according to a recent Legislative Research Services report.

There are less expensive ways to judge Alaskans' opinion on the subject, Gara said. &#8220You do a poll for about $20,000.”

But the cost would not end there.

Big business already sees the competitive benefit of extending health insurance to same-sex partners, McLeod-Ball said. Prohibiting public employers from doing the same could cripple their attempts to compete with other employers. And uninsured Alaskans are forced to rely on state-sponsored Medicare.

The Alaska public sees health care for gay couples differently than gay marriage, Gara said. He estimates only about 50 percent of Alaskans are in favor of revoking the extension of benefits to same-sex partners - as opposed to the 70 percent that voted to outlaw same-sex marriage. &#8220You don't amend the constitution to take away somebody's health care benefits on a 50-50 opinion,” Gara said

The issue stems from Alaska's decision to outlaw same-sex marriages. Also, Alaska has no civil-union statute. Therefore, until Jan. 1, same-sex couples did not have rights equal with heterosexual married couples in regard to employee benefits. Which is why supporters of benefits for same-sex partners of state workers say it is an equal rights issue.

Should gay and lesbian long-term couples have the same rights as heterosexual married couples? &#8220If you work and your employer offers health insurance benefits you should be covered - whether you are gay or not,” Gara said. &#8220I've never seen so much effort go into making sure someone doesn't get medical treatment when they are sick.”

So far, less than 1 percent of public employees statewide, and fewer than 10 employees in Anchorage, have applied for the extended benefits.