There’s lots to consider in this election

It shouldn’t be any surprise to anyone that the state and national elections are upon us, and many things need to be decided before we collectively step into that voting booth to exercise our right to cast a ballot.

I am not going to take any position on candidates in this piece. That’s always much too subjective. But I am going to toss out some food for thought on the ballot initiatives.

There is nearly $500 million in bond proposals seeking authority from you, the voters. I have always believed that we should invest in ourselves if we are going to make the future brighter for the next generation, but after review of the bond list, I had to wonder.

Take, for example, $50 million for the Anchorage port expansion.

Really, didn’t this start out as a federal project that got so bollixed up that it may be beyond redemption? Also, should the residents of Alaska now shoulder the burden for this just because the argument is bond money has never had such low interest rates? Really? Why would anyone go into debt just because the bond money is “on sale” right now?

We haven’t even figured out where our stream of income will come from, what with falling oil prices, the pipeline nowhere close to capacity, and no real hope of rapid acceleration in exploration, or production. Ask yourself, how are we going to pay for this bond debt?

You could say if we hadn’t committed $500 million to AGIA or $250 million to film credits of un-indebted money, we would be fine, and you would be right. So, should we just blow it again without close examination of the facts? It would be history repeating itself.

Bond the debt, hold your cash to operate feel-good programs, and the legislators who proposed this make it look like everything is good. Then when it’s time to pay the piper, such as the debt coming due in the future without the money to pay it, they have already retired and left town. It’s the same old shell game. Nope, not the most judicious move at this time.

Which brings me to the next hot ballot initiative — the Constitutional Convention.

Every 10 years we are asked to decide if we want to re-open Alaska’s Constitution. On ballot measure No. 1, you will find statements in support written by former attorney general John Havelock, and statements opposing submitted by Linda Witt, the president of the League of Women Voters.

Havelock is in support of a convention and relates to us that we should not “fear” extremists, either left- or right-leaning, taking over the convention. There are checks and balances in the process.

Witt, though, is opposed to a convention. Her statement abounds with words such as “risk,” “unnecessary,” “unpredictable,” “slanted,” “costly” and even “perilous.”

Anyone who tries to convince me that hard not to vote for something surely must be afraid of something. All one can say to that is if something scares you that much, then don’t think scary thoughts. After all, there wouldn’t be an Alaska or a United States of America if it weren’t for some pretty bold and brave folks creating it.

I believe that if something ain’t broke, don’t fix it. But, dare I say it, this state Constitution could use a little tuning up. So let’s list what needs fixin’.

First off, we ought to look at the appointment of the state attorney general. Should the attorney general really be picked at the discretion solely of the governor, or should that person be elected? The appointee, as we have seen time and again, works for the governor, not you and me. Shouldn’t the attorney general have independence from the governor’s politics and work for us?

Also, there is the matter of the selection of judges in our fair state. What the Constitution created as an independent, nonpartisan group sometimes doesn’t act like it. Not too long ago they came out against Judge Richard Postma and mounted a campaign to boot him from office, using public money to do so. Now they are supporting Judge Sen K. Tan, using public money again to retain him against a private organization’s attempt to remove him.

How is that independent and nonpartisan? How about addressing the very historically rich and ancient common law notion of, dare I say it, nullification — the jury’s check and balance against bad law? God forbid any lawyer says that in a courtroom, especially in front of a jury. It becomes a one-way ticket to the whipping post and disbarment.

District attorneys, from time to time, try to convince judges that the “evil” defense lawyer is making the nullification argument to get them in big trouble. Usually this is uttered when a DA is real unsure of himself and has a weak case.

The Alaska Permanent Fund doesn’t have constitutional protection. How come?

Large construction projects for the state require a vote and bond debt. Why? Why not just pay straight out for them when needed?

Redistricting is another knotty problem. Every 10 years, depending on which party is in control, the gerrymandering begins. Not a good thing.

How about clearly announcing the sovereignty of this state to the federal government, loud and clear? What a notion!

How about that “owner state” concept on all the riches from gravel to gold in Alaska? The state owns the mineral rights, which leaves legislators to run an oilfield. (We all know how successful a bunch of bureaucrats are at running businesses.) How is that free enterprise? It’s not; it’s socialism.

Why not sell the land with the rights, take the money, discharge our debts and build infrastructure? Let the individuals we sell the land to make deals with the mineral developers and the state gets a tax piece. It works in Texas, Oklahoma and North Dakota.

There have been 40 amendments to the Alaska Constitution and 28 have passed. The problem with that system is it’s one issue at a time and doesn’t adjust the rest of the problems.

In 50 years, the public one time voted for a convention, but the courts struck it down and threw out the ballot. Make of that what you will.

Many say the Alaska Constitution was heralded as a model constitution by U.S. Congress. Not so. It was heralded by the National League of Cities because it was structured on what that group saw as a model. Research the National League of Cities sometime. Review for yourself its idea of American government. And while you’re at it, take a hard look at those movers and shakers in the league if you want to be scared.

Nope, the founders of this state put it in the constitution that we should vote every 10 years as to whether we should revisit the document. Those folks knew they didn’t have a “perfect” product, otherwise they wouldn’t have left it up to you and me to decide it every 10 years.

It’s time to take a bold step, gamble on ourselves, open the books on this state’s guiding document and make some salient course corrections. We have very little to lose and much to gain. Remember, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Verne Rupright has been mayor of Wasilla since 2008.