Public muzzled on special election

A few short issues ago, we commented on the Sept. 14 special election set by the Alaska Legislature. That election is to obtain an advisory vote from the public on the legislature's desire to spend earnings generated by the state's Permanent Fund to pay for state government. And it seeks to limit the Permanent Fund Dividend checks each Alaskan receives annually to $1,700 for the next two years, with the third year's check estimated at approximately $1,300.

Since legislators are not bound in any way to follow the results of advisory votes by the public, we suggested that interested individuals might want to start a ballot initiative to change the advisory vote to a binding vote. In other words, to change the special election to compel the legislature to abide by the public's decision.

We still believe the advice was sound but, by setting Sept. 14 as the date of the special election, the legislature has effectively muzzled the public's opportunity to promote a ballot initiative or referendum in this election. In other words, all Alaskans will be able to do in the special election is advise the legislature to either go forward with its plan to cap at least two dividend checks and appropriate, or spend, the Permanent Fund's earnings to operate state government. A vote the legislature can, and probably will, ignore, particularly if the public advises the legislature to keep its hands out of the Permanent Fund.

A public referendum cannot be used in this case because the state's guidelines for referenda require them to be on an election ballot more than 180 days after adjournment of the legislative session at which the act or bill was passed. By setting the special advisory vote election for Sept. 14 less than 140 days from session end legislators made sure no public referendum on the issue could be approved for this election, let alone be voted on by the public.

Historically, the state has never held an election, special or otherwise, so near the end of a legislative session, which makes the scheduling of this election suspect.

A ballot initiative probably will not work for the Sept. 14 election either. Unlike referenda, which seek to alter an act of the legislature, initiatives are the means by which the public can place new laws on the general election ballot. But the state requires initiative sponsors to get state approval of the initiative's language before an initiative petition may be circulated. And requires signatures by legitimately registered state voters comprising at least 10 percent of the total vote in the last general election. And requires those signatures be from voters residing in at least 75 percent of the state's 40 voting districts. Thus, it is unlikely such a measure could be approved in time to make it on the Sept. 14 ballot.

We believe the legislature erred in limiting the public's voice on such important matters. We are not, however surprised. These are the same legislators who promised the public a vote on subsistence, then refused to put the issue on last November's general election ballot. Applying that little muzzle means the federal government will take over management of Alaska's subsistence fisheries this coming October.

To all those who were encouraged to start a referendum or ballot initiative by our last editorial on the subject, we say: stick with it just aim for the year 2000 general election ballot instead. This should provide ample time to meet all the state's requirements to get your concerns on that year's ballot.

In our last editorial on this subject, we also got on the legislature's case for not allowing voters more options than the above. We suggested they should have allowed voters to consider approving a statewide sales tax to generate new revenues, from residents and visiting non-residents alike, to help cover state government costs.