SPECTRUM: Why I’m voting yes on Proposition 1

In the past week I've heard a lot of conversations about Ballot Measure 1, which would link voter registration to the PFD application.

Although there was no opposition statement published in the Official Election Pamphlet, some opposition arguments have emerged. On Facebook, I've seen people say the cost is too high, that this will increase voter fraud, that this is part of the attempt to take our PFD away, and that if someone is too lazy to register they shouldn't be voting.

These are legitimate concerns. I looked further into them and after doing my research, I am voting Yes on Ballot Measure 1.

The Lieutenant Governor published his cost-estimate for the initiative in 2015, about a year and a half ago. The bulk of that cost estimate, about two-thirds of it, was related to upgrading the Division of Elections database, which had been 30 years old, to make it compatible with the PFD Division database. The Juneau Empire recently reported that this upgrade occurred over the last year. This means it is no longer fair to associate that cost with the ballot initiative. The Lieutenant Governor's office also did not take cost savings into account when they produced their cost estimate. This initiative projects to save between two to three hundred thousand dollars a year. That makes sense to me, its more efficient to use one form to do double or triple duty than to have a separate form for every government function.

I was seriously concerned about the argument on voter fraud. However, when I did my research, I realized this initiative actually would reduce voter fraud. The PFD application is the most secure application in state government. Anyone who applies for their PFD for the first time must provide a birth certificate or similar level of documentation. The process of applying for a PFD is substantially more rigorous than the current form of registering to vote. It is true that non-US citizens can apply for a PFD if they live in Alaska, but they are required to fill out an extended application and provide even more documentation. If most of our voter registration applications and updates are processed through the PFD application, we would take the resources we already spend on cross-checking PFD applications and apply those resources to voter registration. When you think about it, no one is going to fraudulently apply for a PFD so they can be registered to vote. But someone might fraudulently register to vote to help them apply for a fraudulent PFD. This initiative cracks down on that second category.

It is pretty clear that this initiative is not part of the effort to take away our PFD. In fact, the initiative was started by Alaskans who were frustrated that our Legislature and Government were not getting enough done. They thought they found a way to make our government work smarter by working smaller, so they put it on the ballot. Perhaps if more people who don't currently vote get engaged in the process, we will have a better chance of keeping our PFD. But either way, especially given that the Lieutenant Governor's office has refused to update their cost estimate even after admitting it was out of date, I don't think this initiative is connected to the PFD veto.

Lastly, there is the argument that if someone is too lazy to register they shouldn't be voting. I find this a pretty credible argument. I also didn't realize that Alaska has one of the worst voter registration accuracy rates in the entire country. More importantly than that, I think this initiative will have a bigger impact from updated registrations than from creating new registrations.

While attending college I voted in nearly every election (state, federal, borough, and city). However, my voter registration was rarely up to date for very because in the four years I was attending the University of Alaska, I changed residences nine times. It was not that I was a lazy uninformed voter, it was simply a time of transitions in my life.

Currently there are tens of thousands of ballots that are thrown out in local races every election in Alaska. That happens when someone is registered in Anchorage but lives in Palmer. Not only does this cost the state a lot of time and money to sort out, but it also means that eligible voters are having their votes tossed out. This disproportionately effects young Alaskans, Alaskans in the military, and Alaskans working in resource development.

After doing my research, I've concluded that Ballot Measure 1 would not add costs to government and probably would reduce spending, that it improves the security of our elections process, and that it will prevent votes from getting tossed out.

That's good enough for me to vote yes.