Primary should stand as contract referendum

With the clock ticking down the remaining time in Gov. Frank Murkowski's legislative special session, clear progress on the proposed gas pipeline contract remains elusive.

The terms of the plan have proven controversial enough by themselves. In an election year - toss in a measure of personal ambition and season liberally with party politics - that controversy is amplified.

So it becomes increasingly difficult to envision the kind of resolution that would make the long-held dream of a natural gas pipeline, and all the revenue promise it holds, a reality. With so much hanging in the balance - not the least of which are the governor's hopes for a second term - a proposal was floated in the Senate on Friday to put the contract to a public vote on the fall ballot.

A full-blown public referendum. What could be more democratic, right? Not so fast. Before the question would be put to voters, the Legislature would have to approve the contract as is. That means all the controversial terms, including the long-term freezing of royalty rates and changes to existing Alaska statute governing the Stranded Gas Development Act, would get legislative assent in advance of being sent to Alaskans on Election Day. While we are not, in principal, opposed to letting people have their say on this or any matter, the idea does raise some troubling questions.

What, for example, have Alaskans paid their representatives to do for the better part of the year in Juneau? If the debate has gone on unresolved for so long, if so many genuine concerns have been raised by people paid to study the issue full time and formulate decent public policy, then is it reasonable to think Alaskans can reach a meaningful consensus?

Equally disturbing, given the proliferation of deceptive and one-sided advertising currently bombarding Alaskans, wouldn't the outcome of the election come down to which side could mount the best ad campaign? The deep-pocketed and PR-savvy oil industry must be salivating at the prospect - which likely has more than a little to do with why Senate President Ben Stevens, industry's main man in Juneau, has suggested it.

Nonetheless, the greatest cause for skepticism about such a public vote is that it would be merely advisory. Even if the public rejected the proposed contract, the governor could move forward with it.

So why bother? This idea attempts to do too much, too quickly. It is a cynical and politically desperate attempt to get a deal done at any cost. We prefer to look to a referendum of a different sort - the Aug. 22 primary election. If Alaskans are so enamored of the governor's plan, they are free to choose him on their ballots that day.

This seems much more reasonable. It's also much more truly democratic. Because, unlike the referendum touted by Sen. Stevens, the one on Aug. 22 is completely binding.