Concerned that a contentious, political rewrite of the state constitution could destabilize Alaska and jeopardize private investment, a new bipartisan group has launched a campaign to convince voters to reject a convention to change the state’s founding set of laws.
Voters will be asked in November whether they want to convene a convention to rewrite the constitution, a question which the constitution requires go before voters every 10 years.
In a meeting with reporters on April 7, co-chairs of Defend Our Constitution announced more than 150 Alaskans have joined the newly organized coalition to spread the message that a constitutional convention would be unnecessary, expensive and dangerous.
“We have a lot to lose,” said Cathy Giessel, a former Republican lawmaker from Anchorage who served as president of the state Senate 2019-2020.
Speakers emphasized the political diversity of their coalition, saying members had put aside differences to join in opposition to a convention. The group is chaired by current and former state lawmakers, former municipal officials, a union official and the president of an Alaska Native regional corporation, all of whom emphasize their belief a convention would be costly, contentious and potentially disastrous for the state.
Giessel was joined by fellow co-chairs former Fairbanks Republican state senator John Coghill, independent state House member Bryce Edgmon of Dillingham, Alaska AFL-CIO President Joelle Hall, former Fairbanks North Star Borough Mayor Luke Hopkins, and former Juneau Mayor Bruce Botelho.
Speakers emphasized the uncertainty a constitutional convention would create and said the existing process of amending the constitution through the Legislature had proven successful. Coghill said there are many things in Alaska’s constitution that as a conservative he wants to see changed, but that a constitutional convention and potentially wholesale rewrite is a dangerous way to try to achieve those goals.
“Alaska was built on a very good foundation, could be better there’s no doubt about it,” Coghill said. “But I don’t think you should change the foundation just to change the house.”
Coghill and others emphasized that during a convention the entirety of the state’s constitution is subject to change, and political divisions within Alaska and the nation make this the wrong time to rework the state’s foundational document.
“If you think it’s divided (in the Legislature), just wait until you see the outside money coming in,” Coghill said. “We have a lot to gain by staying where we’re at.”
But that’s something the chairman of the Alaskan Independence Party, Bob Bird, disagrees with.
“The term that its unnecessary, that comes from people who are just fine with the status quo,” Bird said in an interview. Convening a state constitutional convention is the third item on the platform of the Alaskan Independence Party.
Bird has openly advocated for a constitutional convention and said there are any number of issues where frustration with legislative deadlock made the prospect appealing. The party has drafted its own version of a state constitution and Bird said there were few reasons not to at least attempt a convention.
Opponents of a constitutional convention argue that Alaska’s constitution is considered one of the best in the nation. That’s because it was written at a time when its authors could look to other state constitutions amid a changing economic landscape, said Gordon Harrison, author of “Alaska’s Constitution: A Citizen’s Guide.”
“The reason the Alaska constitution has been considered a good one is that it created strong institutions of government, it created a strong Legislature and strong governor, a strong executive branch,” Harrison said.
The state constitution requires asking voters every 10 years if they want to convene a constitutional convention. In 2012, voters overwhelmingly rejected the proposal, just as they did in 1972, 1982, 1992 and 2002. But there is an increased amount of cynicism about government, Botelho said, and there seems to be a different atmosphere in 2022, one reason why the bipartisan group decided it needed to organize.
Reader Comments(0)