Less than two years ago, Alaskans voted overwhelmingly against convening a constitutional convention to amend the state’s founding document. More than 70% of voters said no thanks, it’s a bad idea.
It was the sixth time in a row, going back to 1972, that voters by wide margins rejected the whimsy of shaking up the constitution as you would a game of Etch A Sketch and redrawing the fundamental laws of Alaska.
While they oppose reopening the constitution to a potential wholesale rewrite, Alaskans have approved multiple specific amendments over the years: Voters adopted 16 amendments in the first 20 years after statehood, though only 11 amendments in the next 40 years.
It’s not easy to put a constitutional amendment before voters, nor should it be easy. Political pleasures should not dictate changes in the foundational laws. It requires a two-thirds supermajority vote in both the state House and Senate to place an amendment on the ballot.
Though it’s been 20 years since Alaskans last approved an amendment, legislators continue heaving the hottest of hot potatoes onto the political dinner plate to see if anyone bites. Recent half-baked potatoes include proposed amendments to stick a guaranteed Permanent Fund dividend into the constitution, and others to trash the state’s system of appointed judges and switch to political campaigns, where judges would be elected the same as legislative candidates who promise large PFDs, paved roads and no taxes.
Which brings us to today’s potato. An Alaska Superior Court judge earlier this month ruled unconstitutional the state law which allows public money to go toward private and religious organizations through correspondence school programs.
The 2014 law struck down by the judge allowed parents to spend some or all of their allotment of state money to “purchase nonsectarian services and materials from a public, private or religious organization.” The judge ruled that violated the strict prohibition in the constitution: “No money shall be paid from public funds for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.”
Public school districts that operate correspondence programs for homeschooled students receive about $5,300 per pupil from the state. As the districts provide less services than a traditional in-person school— no classrooms, gyms, activities or classroom teachers — they are able to give half, or more, of the state money to parents as an allotment, which parents can spend on education-related expenses.
Spending those allotments with private- or church-operated programs led to the lawsuit.
Gov. Mike Dunleavy and at least a couple of legislators say the answer is to amend the constitution to allow spending allotments with private and religious organizations. But turning this into a constitutional battle isn’t needed.
The answer is much simpler: Change the law to stop such payments.
This is a politically inflicted crisis. Dunleavy pushed the change in law a decade ago when he was a state senator, publicly acknowledging at the time that the statute allowing spending at private and religious organizations was unconstitutional. However, his proposed constitutional amendment failed to win legislative support. No matter, he figured, just go ahead with the law and see what happens.
Rather than mess with the constitution and further weaken the state’s K-12 schools by endorsing the diversion of more state dollars away from public education, the better answer is to change the law governing how correspondence allotments are spent. Allow parents to continue spending their money to buy educational services and materials from public school districts and programs, but not private schools or religious organizations.
Change the law and let parents get on with planning their kids’ education, within the rules of the constitution.
Reader Comments(0)