Enforce the constitution, rebuild Alaska’s foundation for generations to come

In 1982 Alaskans decisively voted to enshrine a safeguard into our constitution that was as bold as it was visionary. Sixty one percent of voters approved Ballot Measure 4, which set a $2.5 billion spending cap, adjusted for inflation and population, and required that at least one third of that spending go into capital projects. Roads, schools, harbors, ferries, ports, and other infrastructure were not afterthoughts. They were the focus. And this was not a suggestion. It was a constitutional command, rooted in the belief that our oil wealth should create assets for the future rather than vanish into the government’s operating budget. For decades the Legislature has ignored this mandate, and the results are clear as our infrastructure ages while the bureaucracy grows.

When Alaskans ratified that amendment, they embraced a vision championed by Governor Jay Hammond and leaders in the Senate Finance Committee during the oil boom years. Hammond warned that without firm limits on spending, the state would go bankrupt in the not-too-distant future. Senators like Rick Halford argued that capital investment would multiply wealth beyond oil, while operating budgets would only consume it. The one third requirement was not an arbitrary number. It was carefully chosen to ensure a minimum of $833 million in 1982 dollars, about $2.9 billion today, would be directed toward projects that last. It was a constitutional floor designed to force investment in the future.

Look at where we are today. In the FY2026 budget, capital spending is projected at about $1.1 billion. That amounts to just 19 percent of the $5.8 billion unrestricted general fund. It is well below the one third target, which should be closer to $1.9 billion if applied honestly. If measured against the full inflation adjusted cap of $15.7 billion, the shortfall is even more glaring. Instead of bridges, schools, and ports, we have steadily rising operating budgets filled with programs that do not deliver long term value. Legislators have resorted to creative accounting. They reclassify maintenance as capital, or hide behind exemptions like Permanent Fund dividends, while spending those same dividends. That is not faithful to the vote Alaskans cast in 1982.

The one third rule was created to shield Alaska from the resource curse. Hammond often said that a lottery winner who spends it all quickly ends up broke. That same principle applies to an oil rich state. In the 1980s, when revenues were high, Alaska kept the promise. Capital shares were often 35 to 40 percent. We built airports, highways, and ferries that are still in use. When oil prices crashed in the 1990s the Legislature began cutting corners, treating deferred maintenance as capital and reducing real investment. By 2000 the capital share of the budget had dropped to 25 percent. Today it is lower still. The framers of the amendment foresaw this risk, but even they could not have predicted the willingness of later legislatures to ignore the constitutional floor entirely.

The consequences are real. Rural Alaska has always relied on capital spending. Forty percent of early capital appropriations built clinics and airstrips in communities with no local tax base. Those communities voted heavily in favor of the amendment because they understood its importance. Yet as urban legislators shift spending into social programs and subsidies, rural areas are left with aging infrastructure. The people who trusted that the constitution would protect them are being shortchanged. At the same time the socialist urban bureaucracy has expanded, swallowing up funds that should have been invested in assets that serve every Alaskan.

This is not just bad policy. It is unconstitutional. Article IX, Section 16 is unique in American state constitutions. It sets a clear test, one third for capital, and the Legislature is failing to meet it. Some argue that courts cannot enforce it, but recent budgets show the issue is not going away. Groups have every right to demand accountability when the plain language of the constitution is ignored. The fact that the cap has ballooned due to inflation and population growth does not erase the people’s vote. One third means one third.

The historical record makes the stakes clear. Halford’s call to multiply wealth through infrastructure was not abstract. It was a deliberate strategy to make sure the oil boom created something lasting. Urban critics worried about prioritizing bricks over bread, but the voters struck a balance. They demanded lasting assets, with flexibility for voters to approve additional spending if needed. That compromise is now ignored as legislators push money into short term social programs with little or no return on investment and ignore projects that build Alaska’s future.

It is time to restore the one third mandate. Since 1983 Alaska has invested around $50 billion in capital projects because of this rule, and those projects remain a vital part of our economy. But recent budgets are shortchanging the future. Reforms like tying the cap to GDP would tighten discipline, but the principle must remain. Stop reclassifying routine maintenance as capital. Stop pouring funds into social programs that belong at the local level or in the private sector. Start building again. Roads, ports, schools, and ferries are the real legacy of our oil wealth.

Alaskans did not vote for a paper tiger. They voted for a lasting constitutional safeguard. The one third rule was designed to ensure that we invest in the future, not just expand government. The Legislature must honor that vote. It is time to enforce the constitution and rebuild Alaska’s foundation for generations to come.

Rep. Kevin McCabe represents District 30 and lives in Big Lake.