Voters will decide if there should be another constitutional convention on Nov. 8

Among the dozens of local and state elections coming up on November 8, there is a proposal on the ballot that is asking voters if there should be another constitutional convention.

First, what is a state constitutional convention?

A constitutional convention is a gathering of elected individuals gathered to write the governing document for a state. Alaska’s first constitutional convention was held in 1955-56, prior to Alaska’s statehood. The convention was attended by 55 delegates who had a hand in writing the constitution, and later the voters adopted it. Through the years, the Constitution has been amended 28 times since it was originally written, there has not been another constitutional convention.

So, why is this on the ballot?

According to Alaska Constitution, “If during any 10-year period a constitutional convention has not yet been held, and the question of holding a constitutional convention has not been placed before the voters, the lieutenant governor shall direct the director to place the question on the ballot for the next regular statewide general or primary election.”

In other words, every 10 years, the question of whether to hold a constitutional convention falls to the Alaskan voters. While the Alaska constitution has had amendments made over the years through a legislative process, it has been voted down.

That could change this year with hot-button issues like the PFD and abortion adding to the decision. There have been active campaigns on both sides of the issue and there was a recent debate on the pros and cons of Proposition 1.

Now, for the pros and cons of the measure.

On the Alaska elections website, in a statement of opposition of the measure, there are concerns that holding a constitutional convention would make vulnerable the entire Alaska Constitution being entirely rewritten, as well as creating years of fiscal and regulatory uncertainty.

The statement also suggests that there is a potential for unpredictable changes and “a Pandora’s box of hot-button issues like access to natural resource, taxes, abortion, guns rights, gender and sexual orientation, the Permanent Fund, land and wildlife management and so much more.”

Alaska is 1 of 34 states that has a state constitution voting requirement, so supporters fear that could make the state exceptionally vulnerable to those whose interests lie outside of the state and only serve to widen the political and partisan divide.

According to the website, “Defend Our Constitution,” a coalition against Proposal 1, a constitutional convention “would be expensive and dangerous: it opens the entire Constitution to unknown consequences on a wide range of hot-button issues.” They also suggest that having a constitution convention could incur “outside special interest groups and dark money.”

“In short, our Alaska Constitution isn’t broken and remains a stabilizing guide through these politically turbulent times.”

Those in support of the measure also have a statement on the Alaska elections website that says opening a constitutional convention would allow for a Permanent Fund Dividend to be part of the constitution as well as rein in what are arguably unconstitutional judiciary powers.

The final argument in support of opening up a constitutional convention would be that the wording within the document could be strengthened so “that citizens, governors and legislators will understand that the judiciary’s power to interpret the constitution must be shared.”

“A constitutional convention is a risk, but Alaskans are risk-takers, and we cannot allow contrived fears to rule us...Our current constitution reads that all political power is inherent in the people, government originates from the people, is instituted for the good of the people as a whole and is founded on their will only.”

If the measure passes, there will be another convention during which elected delegates will propose, discuss, and vote on any changes to the constitution. It remains to be determined how the delegates would be selected, which means the Legislature will be required to set up the process since Alaska’s population has increased and negated the way delegates had been chosen for the first constitutional convention.

There are a lot of “what if’s” as to what a constitutional convention would look like, how much voters would have input, and even when.

If a convention is held, there are no provisions for how or what could be changed, meaning anything from small amendments to a total overhaul to the convention could take place. Alaska’s constitution left no limits for what could and could not be changed.

Whatever changes could be made must be approved by Alaska voters, although that too is remains unclear as to how exactly voters will get to weigh in on the changes. The constitution does not specify. Some believe that convention delegates will decide if voters will approve all of the changes in one vote, if the changes will be grouped together, or if voters will get to vote on individual changes.

An exact timeline is also unclear. The State Legislature could come up against challenges in passing a law to set the constitutional convention process, and that would include delegate selection.

If the measure does not pass, the constitution remains the same. However, Alaska constitution does say the Legislature may call for a convention at any time, although that has not happened before.

Of course, Legislature can always propose amendments, and that requires passage from each house with a two-thirds majority, and then the public gets to vote on the amendments during the next general election. Voters cannot propose constitutional amendments through ballot initiatives.

There is much to be determined. Voters will decide whether to hold the first convention since statehood on Nov. 8.

For more information, visit www.elections.alaska.gov.