Sponsor Statement for HJR 6

Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska authorizing the use of initiative to amend the Constitution of the State of Alaska.

Currently, the use of the initiative enables Alaska’s citizens to place proposed statute changes directly on the ballot, bypassing the legislative process. It is the goal of HJR 6 to extend the power of the initiative to allow Alaskans to propose and enact amendments to their constitution, a power the citizens of 24 other states already enjoy.

Since the second session of the First Alaska Legislature in 1960, there have been more than 600 resolutions introduced by legislators proposing to amend the state constitution. Thirty-one of these have passed the legislature and gone before the voters; 22 were approved and nine were rejected. The most persistent subject of these proposed amendments has been the length of the legislative session, for which 50 resolutions have been introduced. In 1983, Rep. Joe Hayes, then Speaker of the House, succeeded in passing a 120-day session limit, which was subsequently approved by the voters and under which the legislature currently meets. Yet, many Alaskans believe the session could and should be limited to 90 days.

Since 1968, legislators have introduced resolutions at least 30 times to allow for the election of the Attorney General, while nearly that many have been introduced to limit the length of time legislators can serve. In retrospect, these constitutional amendments have been strongly supported by the voters, yet have never been brought before them for a vote.

In essence, HJR 6 would correct this inequity by allowing Alaska’s citizens to initiate and enact the constitutional amendments they believe are needed.

There are six positive reasons why the voters of Alaska are entitled to this form of direct legislation: 1.) Direct legislation will reduce the power of political parties, political bosses, and entrenched legislators; 2.) Direct legislation will reduce the power of special interests; 3). Direct legislation will encourage the education of the people and enhance the development of civic virtue; 4.) Citizens are as well qualified as are their elected representatives to decide public policy questions; (In fact, for anyone laboring under the illusion that legislators hold some sort of magical wisdom to propose only the best and brightest of constitutional amendments, I would recommend a review of the constitutional spending limit (passed in 1982) and the constitutional budget reserve (passed in 1990). Both have been abysmal failures and should be repealed). 5.) Citizens want to decide public policy questions directly, and by permitting them to have full participation, we would substantially increase public interest in and satisfaction with their government; 6.) Direct initiative or grass roots legislation issues on the ballot on election day increases voter interest in the election and results in higher voter turn-out.

It is imperative that we as legislators provide the voters of Alaska the direct means by which to change their constitution. In light of the fact that only about five percent of the proposed constitutional amendments proposed in the Legislature in the past 30 years have been passed on to the voters, it is clear that the Legislature alone will not pass certain amendments that the public desires. This Legislature has the opportunity to show a new responsiveness to Alaskans by removing the barriers and allowing the voters to exercise this right of direct democracy.

Throughout the history of states, many courts have espressed the view that the constitution of a state is the voice of the people and a contract that the people of the state have created to expand the power of or to control their government. In Alaska, when it comes to the constitution, the voice of the people is mute.