2000 GENERAL ELECTION
BALLOT MEASURES
Statements printed on this page are the opinions of the authors
and are presented as submitted to the Division of Elections
Ballot Measure 1 - Constitutional Amendment
Amendment Prohibiting Voter Initiatives About Wildlife
BALLOT LANGUAGE
This ballot measure would change the Alaska Constitution so that voters could not use the
initiative process to make laws that permit, regulate, or prohibit taking or transporting
wildlife, or prescribe seasons or methods for taking wildlife.
SHOULD THIS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BE ADOPTED? Yes or No
Votes cast by the members of the Twenty-First Alaska Legislature on final passage:
House: 27 yeas, 11 nays, 2 excused
Senate: 14 yeas, 6 nays, all members present
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY SUMMARY
This measure would amend the state constitution. This measure would ban the use of the
initiative to enact, amend, or repeal certain state laws that relate to wildlife.
FULL TEXT OF PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
[HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 56]
* Section 1. Article XI, sec. 7, Constitution of the State of Alaska, is amended to read:
Section 7. Restrictions. The initiative shall not be used to dedicate revenues, make or
repeal appropriations, create courts, define the jurisdiction of courts or prescribe their
rules, permit, regulate, or prohibit the taking or transportation of wildlife, prescribe seasons
or methods for the taking of wildlife, or enact local or special legislation. The referendum
shall not be applied to dedications of revenue, to appropriations, to local or special
legislation, or to laws necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or
safety.
* Sec. 2. The amendment proposed by this resolution shall be placed before the voters of the
state at the next general election in conformity with art. XIII, sec. 1, Constitution of the
State of Alaska, and the election laws of the state.
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT
Ballot Measure No.1 is a much needed solution to a serious problem affecting sound wildlife
management in Alaska. It gives all Alaskans the opportunity to return wildlife management to
where it belongs, namely to a public process forum working with trained professionals making
sensible solutions based on biological considerations. Expensive political campaigns funded by
animal rights groups from the Lower 48 designed to win support based solely on public emotion
through paid signature gatherers, deceptive media advertising and biased informational material
is not how Alaska's wildlife should be managed. The people of Alaska and our wildlife deserve
better.
Those opposing Ballot Measure No.1 say the system is "broken" and "unfair."
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Alaska has the most open public process for citizen
participation in management decisions of any state in the Union. The Alaska Department of Fish
and Game and the Alaska Board of Game, along with local Advisory Committees provide an
effective, representative system open to all Alaskans, citizens and professionals alike. There
are nearly 100 Advisory Committees distributed throughout Alaska composed of 1,000 Alaskans,
urban and rural, from every walk of life elected at public meetings statewide. They provide a
fair opportunity for the broadest spectrum of Alaskas people, to affect all wildlife management
decisions.
Local Advisory Committees reflect a diversity of opinion within Alaska's citizens ranging from
non-use protectionism to advocacy of sustainable resource use. The process itself promotes
tolerance and the free-exchange of ideas and fair and effective management, something Outside
interests reject. The initiative process, on the other hand, favors densely populated urban
areas where daily realities and the lifestyles of rural areas may be least understood. This,
coupled with millions of dollars from Outside animal rights groups supporting anti-management
and anti-harvest agendas, promotes wildlife management based on questionable emotional pleas,
not sound biological standards.
The framers of our Constitution restricted the ballot initiative process in Article XI, Section
7 of the Alaska Constitution. Section 7 exempts certain subjects from the ballot initiative
process. This is not an uncommon practice, as over half of the 50 states do not even have an
initiative process. I believe wildlife management is an appropriate subject for exemption.
Initiatives are not the way to promote sound wildlife management reflecting Alaska's many
differing regional needs when the public has available an open public process.
Your "Yes" vote for Ballot Measure No.1 will:
- assure scientific and prudent management of wildlife resources, through a grassroots, public
process of adopting state wildlife law and wildlife regulations,
- promote healthier wildlife populations for the future generations of all Alaskans, and
- protect traditional Alaskan lifestyles dependent upon abundant wildlife populations.
Sincerely,
Representative Carl Morgan, Jr.
Sponsor of Ballot Measure No.1
STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION
VOTE NO ON BALLOT MEASURE 1 because it is a power grab by the Legislature to take away
constitutional rights from Alaska's people. Ballot Measure 1 strikes at the heart of Alaskans'
most important rights to govern themselves with a free voice.
The framers of Alaska's Constitution clearly believed the citizens should retain power over our
elected representatives. Our Constitution specifically authorizes the people themselves to
create laws through the initiative process whenever they are dissatisfied by the Legislature:
"The people may propose and enact laws by the initiative."
Now members of the Legislature want to change our Constitution to limit the right of voters to
hold government accountable on wildlife issues. This is an attempt by the Legislature to take
power away from the people - pure and simple - and it can only be stopped by a NO vote.
Alaska's Constitution states:
"All political power is inherent in the people. All government originates with the people,
is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the people as a
whole."
We must not let the Legislature restrict the power of the people. We must stop this attack on
democracy!
VOTE NO ON BALLOT MEASURE 1 and do not let the Legislature limit the right of citizens to vote
on laws that deal with wildlife. Alaska's Constitution was developed with the clear intent of
being able to have people vote on fish and game issues. Our Constitution is considered a model
among all the states' constitutions for retaining ultimate political power with the people.
THERE IS NO EXCUSE TO DEPRIVE THE PEOPLE OF THIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.
The Legislature does not trust the people to make decisions on wildlife. But only two of the 29
initiatives that have appeared on ballots since statehood have dealt with wildlife, and only one
of these passed. The people of Alaska are not stupid. The voters considered each issue on its
merits. The people's right to do so should not be abridged, whether it deals with wildlife,
fisheries, or subsistence.
Alaska's Constitution is based on a system of checks and balances. Ballot Measure 1 would
remove an important check on the Legislature. VOTE NO because this ballot measure will put
final wildlife decisions in the hands of politicians. This is not about science - it is all
about politics.
THE ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (ADFG) STRONGLY OPPOSES THIS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Here is what the ADFG Commissioner says:
"Unlike the sponsors of HJR 56 [Ballot Measure 1], I believe Alaskans are able to weigh
information and vote just as intelligently on wildlife issues as they do on other initiative
issues."
"The Alaska Department of Fish and Game believes that removing wildlife management issues
from the initiative process will lead to more conflict, public cynicism, and divisiveness among
Alaskans. The department strongly supports the existing constitutional right of Alaskans to
enact wildlife policies through the initiative process if and when they find it necessary."
STAND UP FOR ALASKANS' EXISTING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
VOTE NO ON BALLOT MEASURE 1.
David R. Cline, President, Kodiak Brown Bear Trust
Vic Fischer, Former Senator (framer of the Alaska Constitution)
Governor Wally Hickel
Representative Beth Kerttula
Jack Lentfer, Wildlife Biologist
Byron Mallott, President, First Alaskan Foundation
Jack Roderick, Former Anchorage Mayor
Arliss Sturgulewski, Former Senator
Kenneth Whitten, Retired ADFG Wildlife Biologist
Deborah Williams, Director, Alaska Conservation Foundation
Lew Williams, Jr., Ketchikan
Ballot Measure 2 - Constitutional Amendment
Amendment and Revision of Alaska Constitution
BALLOT LANGUAGE
This proposal says that an amendment to the Alaska Constitution is a change that is limited to
one subject. It may affect more than one part of the constitution. This proposal also adds a
new section to article XIII of the Alaska Constitution. It says that a court may not change the
language of an amendment to the constitution proposed by the legislature. Also, a court may not
change the language of an amendment or revision proposed by a constitutional convention.
SHOULD THIS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BE ADOPTED? Yes or No
Votes cast by the members of the Twenty-First Alaska Legislature on final passage:
House: 28 yeas, 12 nays, all members present
Senate: 15 yeas, 5 nays, all members present
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY SUMMARY
This proposal adds language that describes what an amendment to the state constitution is. It
is a change that deals with one subject. It may affect more than one provision. The proposal
also adds a new section. It states that a court may not alter the language of an amendment
proposed by the legislature. It states that a court may not alter the language of an amendment
or revision proposed by a constitutional convention. The requirements for proposing amendments
or revisions to the voters are not changed.
FULL TEXT OF PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
[HOUSE CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 27 (FIN) am H]
* Section 1. Article XIII, sec. 1, Constitution of the State of Alaska, is amended to read:
Section 1. Amendments. Amendments to this constitution may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of
each house of the legislature. The lieutenant governor shall prepare a ballot title and
proposition summarizing each proposed amendment, and shall place them on the ballot for the next
general election. If a majority of the votes cast on the proposition favor the amendment, it
shall be adopted. Unless otherwise provided in the amendment, it becomes effective thirty days
after the certification of the election returns by the lieutenant governor. An amendment is a
change that is limited to one subject and may affect more than one constitutional provision.
* Sec. 2. Article XIII, Constitution of the State of Alaska, is amended by adding a new section
to read:
Section 5. Changing Constitutional Proposal Prohibited. A court may not alter or change the
language of an amendment to this constitution proposed by the legislature, or of an amendment or
revision to this constitution proposed by a constitutional convention.
* Sec. 3. The amendments proposed by this resolution shall be placed before the voters of the
state at the next general election in conformity with art. XIII, sec. 1, Constitution of the
State of Alaska, and the election laws of the state.
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT
This ballot measure clarifies when a change to the Alaska Constitution is an amendment. Article
XIII, Section 1, provides that amendments to the Constitution may be proposed by a two-thirds
vote of each house of the legislature and then submitted to the voters for approval. Under
Article XIII, Section 4, a revision of the Constitution may be proposed only by a constitutional
convention. However, no provision of the Constitution defines an amendment or explains the
difference between an amendment and a revision.
Our Supreme Court recently wrestled with this troublesome issue and concluded "that a
revision is a change which alters the substance and integrity of our constitution in a manner
measured both qualitatively and quantitatively" under a "hybrid approach." An
enactment, the Court said, which "is so extensive in its provisions as to change directly
the 'substantial entirety' of the constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous existing
provisions may well constitute a revision therefore [while] even a relatively simple enactment
may accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to
amount to a revision also. The process of amendment, on the other hand, is proper for those
changes which are 'few, simple, independent, and of comparatively small importance.' The core
determination is always the same: whether the changes are so significant as to create a need to
consider the constitution as an organic whole."
This subjective, nebulous test puts our Constitution in a virtual straightjacket for three
principal reasons. First, a change having broad public support will be difficult to achieve in
the legislature; opponents will always argue endlessly that the change is a revision which must
be adopted at a constitutional convention and therefore should be rejected. Second, before
the public may vote, even the simplest, highly desirable change will be subjected to interminable
delaying litigation by opponents, and ultimately even it may be found to be an impermissible
revision under the obscure "hybrid approach." Third, since it is always uncertain
whether courts will find the proposed change an amendment or a revision, the legislature will be
reluctant to adopt it because the courts may eventually decide it is a revision.
To alleviate these impediments to giving Alaskans the right to vote on proposed changes to their
Constitution, short of a constitutional convention which few Alaskans now want, the legislature
adopted this narrow ballot measure. It does not infringe upon courts' right to reject impermissible
revisions; it simply gives helpful guidance to legislatures and courts in future endeavors to
change the Constitution by defining an amendment as "a change that is limited to one
subject and may affect more than one constitutional provision."
This ballot measure also adds Section 5 to Article XIII. It provides that a court may not change
the language of an amendment proposed by the legislature or an amendment or revision proposed by
constitutional convention. This measure is necessary to clarify that under Article XIII
constitutional conventions and legislatures, not the courts, have the power to propose
constitutional changes to the people of Alaska.
Charlie Cole, Former Alaska State Attorney General
STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION
A LEGISLATIVE POWER GRAB.
This is a deceptive proposition intended to undermine Alaska's Constitution, giving power to
the legislature at the expense of the people. It reverses the effect of a unanimous Supreme Court
decision, setting out the intent of the framers of the constitution.
Alaska's Constitution is clear: wholesale "revisions" are done through constitutional
conventions. Only "amendments" -- addressing one subject and one part of the
Constitution -- may be initiated by the legislature. This framers' intent is stated in the
convention minutes.
The constitution fathers thought it safe to let the legislature propose small changes, that is
amendments. But to protect the people from the secrecy and intrigues of the legislature,
revisions, amending many provisions, should be run through a convention. A convention is elected
specially by the voters to consider only the constitution. A legislature is a forum obsessed
with temporary purposes, with re-election, party politics and money. It is full of biases that
obstruct consideration of the big picture, what's good for Alaska's future. When the legislature
puts a proposition to the people, always in language designed to persuade, voters may only accept
or reject. A convention gives Alaskans an opportunity to decide more complex issues after open
debate.
The framers understood that it is sometimes hard to decide what is an amendment and what is a
revision. They wanted the court to decide which was which. That's what courts do, case by case.
This legislature wants to substitute itself for a convention whenever a majority of the members
feels like it. They want to take power away from the courts and the people. You should VOTE NO.
The proposition states, "an amendment is limited to one subject and may affect more than
one constitutional provision." It's already true that amendments are limited to one subject.
This is no protection. To use examples from the court's opinion, a provision that said,
"the judicial power is transferred to the legislature" may be one subject, but it
affects many provisions. Similarly, "taxation" is one subject that could cover a
variety of taxes and collection practices. Allowing the legislature to initiate changes that
"may affect more than one constitutional provision" vastly expands the legislature's
power to rewrite the whole constitution, bypassing a convention.
This proposal also says the court may not alter or change the language of an amendment. Some
legislators did not like a court opinion which, based on many other court cases, said that
unnecessary words to an amendment can be dropped. This amendment allows legislators to junk up
the constitution with surplus words.
Proposition 2 is a legislative power grab that violates the right and responsibility of Alaskans
to take care of the big constitutional issues themselves through convention. If you want a
convention, you get to vote on that question every ten years, next in 2002.
Don't let the legislature violate the intent of Alaska's constitution. Don't let the legislature
take power away from the people and from the courts. VOTE NO.
John Havelock, Alaska Attorney General to William Egan
Vic Fischer, Constitutional Convention Delegate
Ballot Measure 3 - Constitutional Amendment
Constitutional Amendment Relating To Public Corporations
BALLOT LANGUAGE
This amendment states that the Alaska permanent fund would be managed by a public corporation
established by law. Members of the public appointed by the governor to the board of this
corporation would not be subject to legislative approval. These members may only be removed
from the board for cause. However, members appointed by the governor to boards of other public
corporations that manage significant state assets must be approved by the legislature. Also, a
law could be enacted to provide that these other board members may only be removed from office
for cause.
SHOULD THIS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BE ADOPTED? Yes or No
Votes cast by the members of the Twenty-First Alaska Legislature on final passage:
House: 29 yeas, 4 nays, 7 absent
Senate: 20 yeas, 0 nays, all members present
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY SUMMARY
This measure relates to public corporations set up by law.
Now, the governor appoints people to the boards that run these corporations. The legislature
cannot confirm or reject them. Under this measure, the legislature could confirm or reject
appointees to boards of public corporations that manage "significant State assets."
This phrase may be defined in a future law. There is an exception. The legislature could not
confirm or reject appointees to the permanent fund corporation board.
Now, the permanent fund corporation is only required by a statute. Under this measure, the
constitution would require that there be a public corporation to manage the permanent fund.
Now, the governor may remove members of the permanent fund board for a reason. "Reason"
is not defined. Under this measure, a member of the permanent fund board could be removed only
for cause or at the end of the member's term. "Cause" may be defined in a future law.
FULL TEXT OF PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
[CONFERENCE CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 34]
* Section 1. Article III, sec. 26, Constitution of the State of Alaska, is amended to
read:
Section 26. Boards and Commissions. Except as provided in Section 15 of Article
IX, when [WHEN] a board or commission is at the head of a principal department or a
regulatory or quasi-judicial agency, or is the governing entity of a public corporation
established by law that manages significant State assets as defined by law, its members
shall be appointed by the governor, subject to confirmation by a majority of the members of the
legislature in joint session, and may be removed as provided by law. They shall be citizens of
the United States. The board or commission may appoint a principal executive officer when
authorized by law, but the appointment shall be subject to the approval of the governor.
* Sec. 2. Article IX, sec. 15, Constitution of the State of Alaska, is amended to read:
Section 15. Alaska Permanent Fund. (a) At least twenty-five percent of all mineral lease rentals,
royalties, royalty sale proceeds, federal mineral revenue sharing payments and bonuses received
by the State shall be placed in a permanent fund, the principal of which shall be used only for
those income-producing investments specifically designated by law as eligible for permanent fund
investments. All income from the permanent fund shall be deposited in the general fund unless
otherwise provided by law.
* Sec. 3. Article IX, sec. 15, Constitution of the State of Alaska, is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(b) The permanent fund shall be managed by a public corporation established by law. A member of
the board of the corporation who is not the head of a principal department is not subject to
confirmation by the legislature, but, during the member's term of office, the member may only be
removed for cause as defined by law.
* Sec. 4. The amendments proposed by this resolution shall be placed before the voters of the
state at the next general election in conformity with art. XIII, sec. 1, Constitution of the
State of Alaska, and the election laws of the state.
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT
Voting yes for Ballot Measure 3 will enable the public to be included in the process of
appointing directors in charge of public corporations that control hundreds of millions, and in
some cases, billions of dollars in State assets. The passage of this ballot measure will also
help protect the Permanent Fund Board of Trustees from partisan politics.
The public has less input into the selection of the directors managing our State's multi-million
dollar public corporations than into the executive and legislative branches that are subject
to public scrutiny through the election process. The governor's cabinet appointees and his
appointments to boards and commissions are subject to legislative confirmation. There is,
however, no such requirement for directors of the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation with assets
of over $4 billion or the appointees of the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority
with assets over $1.2 billion. And without approval of this measure the Alaska Railroad, with
thousands of acres of land as part of the $168 million in state assets, their control would
continue to be unaccountable. This just doesn't make sense.
Legislative confirmation of public corporation officers would allow the public to participate
in confirmation hearings, find out the credentials of the appointees, and have a voice in their
selection by public testimony.
Ballot Measure 3 will not require confirmation of the directors of the Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation, but it will prevent an incoming governor from removing the entire board before
terms have expired and replacing them with the Governor's own political appointees. The last
two governors (a Republican and a Democrat) replaced nearly the entire Permanent Fund Board
without cause when they took office. Minimizing partisan politics, as well as establishing
stability and continuity on the board, is something we should be concerned about when we are
talking about managing $28 billion.
As a member of the Constitutional Convention, I take a considerable pride in the document that
54 other Alaskans and I drafted. I do not take proposed changes to our Constitution lightly.
Alaskans might wonder why we didn't provide for confirmation of directors of public corporations
when we drafted the Constitution. Frankly, 45 years ago we simply did not foresee the creation
of state corporations with the responsibility for hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars
of state assets - your money. As a result, there is little or no accountability to the public.
You can correct this omission by voting YES on Ballot Measure 3 on November 7th.
Former Lt. Governor Jack Coghill
STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION
This proposition is not about public corporations. It's about another legislative power grab,
this time at the expense of the executive branch. It undermines the existing Alaska
Constitution.
The drafters of the State Constitution established the three branches of government--the
legislature, executive, and judiciary--with a clearly defined separation of powers. Each branch
has its functions and responsibilities. Checks and balances among the branch are provided for.
Ballot Measure No. 3 would change this balance. As with the first two proposed amendments, this
measure would give more power to the legislature. In this case, that would be by lessening the
authority of the executive branch. This violates a basic premise of the constitution -- a
strong governor who is responsible for the operation of all elements of the executive branch.
This amendment goes against the Alaska Constitution.
Legislative involvement in the appointment process already exists under the State Constitution.
Framers of the Constitution debated at length which board and commission appointees would require
legislative confirmation. The results are defined in the Constitution and in existing state law.
More amendments are NOT needed at this time.
Some legislators now speculate about what Constitutional Convention delegates would have done
in view of the changed circumstances in Alaska. But those are specious arguments. They have no
basis whatsoever for substituting their views for the Constitution itself.
Aside from all these issues, the proposed amendment is internally inconsistent. As proposed,
the governor could make appointments without legislative approval to the Alaska Permanent
Fund Board, which manages $30 billion of public funds. On the other hand, appointments to
boards that manage far lesser state assets, such as AHFC, would require confirmation by
the legislature. Such illogical provisions do not belong in the Constitution.
The legislative super-majority is playing loose with Alaska's Constitution. The three proposed
constitutional amendments are a conscious power grab by the legislature -- from the people, from
the judiciary, and from the executive. That's wrong, and they need to be stopped.
So, JUST VOTE NO. VOTE NO ON BALLOT MEASURES 1, 2, AND 3.
Victor Fischer, Former State Senator
Member, Alaska Constitutional Convention
Ballot Measure 4 - Initiative Petition
Bill Limiting Property Assessment and Taxation
BALLOT LANGUAGE
This initiative bars certain municipalities from setting property tax rates above 10 mills.
The 10 mill cap will not apply to taxes to repay bonds issued before January 1, 2001. Taxes to
pay for bonds issued after January 1, 2001, must be included in the 10 mill limit. The bill
also repeals the law requiring the same mill rate on all properties. It sets the assessment of
property at its value on January 1, 2001. Each year an assessment may rise no more than 2
percent. Property will be reassessed when it is sold or improved.
SHOULD THIS INITIATIVE BECOME LAW? Yes or No
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY SUMMARY
This measure applies to local government property assessment and taxation. It sets the value of
a parcel of property as of January 1 of the first year after it takes effect. That value is set
as the parcel's full and true value. Thereafter, it permits value increases of no more than two
percent per year or the inflation rate, whichever is less. It directs a new full and true value
to be set and applied when a parcel is improved or sold. Parcel assessment transfers and other
exceptions may be made by law. The measure limits property tax rate levies to 10 mills (one
percent of value). It removes the current requirement of a uniform tax rate levy on all
property and makes other changes. Taxes to repay local government general obligation bonds
issued after January 1, 2001, fall within the 10 mill rate limit. Taxes to repay bonds issued
before that date do not. The measure does not amend the statute that limits tax rates for
second class cities.
FULL TEXT OF PROPOSED LAW
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. The People of the State of Alaska find and determine that
political and taxation power is vested in the People; that each person has the right to the
enjoyment of the rewards of his or her own industry as guaranteed by Article 1, Section 1 of the
Alaska Constitution; that substantial pressures will be placed on local governing bodies to
raise taxes; that a substantial threat of additional and unwarranted taxation of the People
presently exists; that the Alaska Legislature and the local governing bodies do not appear
willing to protect the People against this taxation; that property owners should not be
subjected to continuing large increases in taxes or assessments; that property owners should be
entitled to rely for the future on assessed values on their properties that existed at the time
of purchase; that lower taxes encourage economic growth; and that it is necessary for the People
to place certain controls on the manner in which the People may be taxed.
SECTION 2. MUNICIPAL PROPERTY TAXATION AND ASSESSMENT.
1. AS 29.45.110 is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:
a. The assessor shall assess property at its full and true value as of January 1 of the first
assessment year after this statute takes effect, except as provided in this section and any
other provisions of federal, state or local laws and regulations which require or authorize the
assessment to be at a lower value. The full and true value is defined as the price that the
property would bring in an open market at that time in a sale between a willing seller and a
willing buyer both conversant with the property.
b. In subsequent assessment years, the assessed value may not be raised more than the rate of
inflation as shown by the consumer price index, or comparable data, for the area under the
taxing jurisdiction, but in no event to exceed two percent in any given year.
c. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (b), property shall be reassessed at its full
and true value as of January 1 of the subsequent year if the property is newly constructed, or
if a sale, purchase or change of ownership has taken place during an assessment year.
d. The Legislature may create definitions and exceptions to subsection (c) to prohibit
reassessment for types of sales, purchases or changes of ownership, including, but not limited
to, transfers such as those within the family, creations of trust to benefit the family members,
or transfers as a result of death, divorce, or marital dissolution. The Legislature may also
allow the transfer of an assessment from one piece of property to another under appropriate
circumstances, such as, but not limited to, eminent domain, taking of property by governmental
action, changes of residence of any persons over age 65 who are qualified for the tax exemption
authorized by AS 29.45.050(i) and who move to a residence of equal or lesser value.
e. The subsections of AS 29.45.010 presently designated (b) and (c) are re-designated (e) and
(f).
2. AS 29.45.090(a) is repealed and reenacted to read as follows: A municipality may not,
during any year, levy an ad valorem tax for any purpose in an amount in excess of one percent of
the assessed value of property in the municipality, nor may it levy a tax on any particular
piece of property in an amount in excess of one percent of the assessed value of that particular
piece of property.
3. AS 29.45.100 is amended to read as follows: The limitations provided for in AS 29.45.080 -
29.45.090 do not apply to taxes levied or pledged to pay or secure the payment of the principal
and interest on bonds issued prior to January 1, 2001, but do apply to taxes levied or pledged
to pay or secure the payment or principal and interest on bonds issued on or after that date.
Taxes to pay or secure the payment of principal and interest on bonds issued prior to January 1,
2001 may continue to be levied without limitation as to rate or amount, regardless of whether
the bonds are in default or danger of default.
SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this Act are independent and severable, and if any
provision of this Act, or the applicability of any provision to any person or circumstance,
shall be held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Act
shall not be affected and shall be given effect to the fullest extent practicable.
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This initiative shall be effective when enacted according to law.
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT
The property tax cap initiative limits the property tax rate to 10 mills. It also limits
assessment increases to the rate of inflation, not to exceed 2% per year. Both these limitations
provide needed protections and opportunities to the taxpayers of Alaska.
Government taxes and spending are too high. Both the State and most local governments have
created large government reserve accounts. For example, the State has more than $30 billion in
reserve, and the Municipality of Anchorage has more than $200 million in available cash reserves.
These funds can be used to facilitate the transition to the 10 mill cap, and create a more
efficient and productive government.
The effects of this initiative will greatly benefit Alaska. The tax cap will force local
governments to better manage their resources, reduce expenses, and equalize the tax burden
between taxpayers. Government operations will have to become more efficient and cost-effective.
Government will have to consider which services should be provided by government, and which are
better provided by private enterprise.
More money will remain in the hands of individuals. This will allow the private sector economy
in Alaska to expand and more jobs will be created. Lower taxes mean that many more Alaskans will
qualify to purchase housing. Renters benefit because landlords will have additional funds to
upgrade their properties or reduce rents.
Adequate housing is a basic need. The assessment limitations will protect individuals in their
right to affordable housing. Increases in property assessments recently have far outpaced
inflation, harming both property owners and renters. Alaskans, should not have to face dramatic
assessment and tax increases as their incomes substantially decrease.
There will be a well-financed campaign and misleading scare tactics are being used by groups
that fear change or just rely too much on government beneficence. Do not accept these scare
tactics at face value.
This initiative was patterned after an initiative that was passed 20 years ago in California,
which has proved to be very popular and successful. Six other states have followed suit since
then. The California economy is now an extremely robust economy. The public education system in
California has not broken down - neither will Alaskan public education. In fact, Alaskan
education will have an opportunity to improve.
Governments' large reserve accounts can be used to fund any interim shortfalls in local
government funding. Local governments and schools will continue to operate. Governments may also
sell some of their large holdings of unused property to private individuals, and also stop
competing with private enterprise.
The tax cap initiative is not the final say on the matter. In the future, the Legislature will
amend the initiative to deal with the situation as it develops. It is necessary that this
initiative be passed now to begin meaningful tax limitation and reform in Alaska. Along with
many other Alaskans, I will vote for it. Please join us and vote YES on Ballot Measure #4.
Tom Fink
Former Mayor of Anchorage and
Speaker of the Alaska House of Representatives
Tax Cap Yes! 907-278-1944
STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION
Ballot Measure 4 is a bad idea for Alaska
This is the most critical decision Alaskan voters will make since statehood. Consider it
carefully. Remember: "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is too good to be
true."
Ballot Measure 4 is a bad idea because:
- It removes local control of property tax rates from local voters and imposes a "one size
fits all" maximum 10 mill rate on any community with a property tax;
- It will require all new bond repayment to be included under the 10 mill cap, making it impossible
to fund the renovation or construction of schools, fire stations, or other public buildings -
even if local voters want them and are willing to pay for them;
- It will require many communities to make deep cuts in schools and other services including
police, fire, emergency medical services, street maintenance and snow removal. It will entirely
eliminate some fire and road service areas. It will all but eliminate parks and recreation,
libraries, arts and beautification programs;
- It will depress the economy because of the loss of both public and private sector jobs, and
because of declining public services, Alaska will be a less attractive place for new businesses
to locate;
- It will increase the competition between urban and rural Alaska for available state funding.
This will widen the divide between the two.
Consider these facts:
- Any new fees or sales tax increases instituted to make up for lost property tax revenue are not
deductible on your federal tax return. Only property tax is;
- Those who will benefit the most from Ballot Measure 4 are the largest property owners, most of
whom are corporations based outside of Alaska and owned by mostly outside shareholders;
- Because of the probable cut in fire protection, many Alaskans' fire insurance premiums will jump
up;
- Nine communities in the state, including Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau, already have tax or
spending caps in place, approved on a local level to meet local conditions;
- The State Legislature, already grappling with a fiscal gap in the budget, will not come to our
rescue if we decide to inflict this wound on our communities;
- Alaskans already enjoy the lowest tax rate of any state in the nation. When the Permanent Fund
Dividend is taken into account, most families receive more from state government than they pay
in local and state taxes.
Proponents of Ballot Measure 4 try to make light of these concerns. They ask, sarcastically,
"Are you scared yet?" But, they offer little in the way of reassurance.
When asked about the impact on education and other essential services, one said, "It's not
my problem, it's the problem of the politicians."
Another agreed that, "It's like using a chainsaw for heart surgery."
Other proponents offer unworkable "solutions" to the problems they would create.
We believe Alaskans deserve better. Join us in voting NO on Ballot Measure 4.
Alaskans United Against the Cap
"Standing Together for Our Communities"
Ballot Measure 5 - Initiative Petition
Allowing Uses of Hemp, Including Marijuana
BALLOT LANGUAGE
This bill would do away with civil and criminal penalties for persons 18 years or older who use
marijuana, or other hemp products. These products include hemp used for paper, fiber, food,
fuel, medicine, or personal use in private. Marijuana would be regulated like an alcoholic
beverage. Doctors could prescribe marijuana. The bill allows for laws limiting marijuana use
in some cases to protect public safety. It grants amnesty to persons convicted in the past of
marijuana crimes. The bill creates an advisory group to study restitution for those persons.
SHOULD THIS INITIATIVE BECOME LAW? YES or NO
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY SUMMARY
The measure allows a person 18 or older to possess, grow, distribute, and use hemp and hemp
products. It allows doctors to prescribe hemp medicines. Hemp is defined as hemp, cannabis, or
marijuana, or any part of a cannabis plant. Hemp intoxicating products include all hemp
products other than industrial hemp, hemp medicines, and hemp food products. Hemp intoxicating
products shall be regulated in a manner similar to liquor. It grants amnesty to people who
committed crimes that are no longer illegal under the measure. It sets out a way such people
can clear their criminal records. It allows laws to be enacted to regulate persons under the
influence of hemp who are doing things that may affect public safety. This includes things like
driving cars or operating heavy machinery. It allows laws to be enacted to limit the use of hemp
intoxicating products in public places. It directs certain state officials to challenge federal
laws that conflict with the measure. It prohibits the use of state funds or personnel to help
enforce federal laws that regulate acts that are no longer illegal under the measure. It
provides for an advisory panel. The panel would study and report on making restitution. The
restitution would be for people who were imprisoned or fined or had property forfeited for acts
that are no longer illegal under the measure.
FULL TEXT OF PROPOSED LAW
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:
I. Add the following section to the criminal code of the State of Alaska, any laws or policies
to the contrary notwithstanding: 1. Persons, 18 years or older, shall not be prosecuted, be
denied any right or privilege, nor be subject to criminal or civil penalties for the possession,
cultivation, distribution, or consumption of:
a. Industrial hemp products. Hemp farmers and manufacturers of industrial hemp products shall
not be subject to any special zoning or licensing fees that are discriminatory or prohibitive.
b. Hemp medicinal preparations.
c. Hemp products for nutritional use.
d. Hemp products for personal use in private. No permit or license may be required for
non-commercial cultivation, transportation, distribution or consumption of any hemp product.
2. Definitions:
a. The term "hemp" means hemp, cannabis, or marijuana, or any part or preparation of the plant
cannabis sativa, cannabis indica, cannabis americana, or any variety of cannabis.
b. The term "industrial hemp products" means all products made from hemp, cannabis, or marijuana,
that are not designed or intended for human consumption, and includes, but is not limited to:
paper, fiber, fuel, plastics, paint, seed for cultivation, animal feed, veterinary medicine,
oil, plants used for crop rotation, erosion control, or weed control.
c. The term "hemp medicinal preparations" means all products made from hemp, cannabis, or
marijuana, that are designed, intended, or used for human consumption, for the treatment of any
disease, the relief of pain, or for any healing purpose including the treatment or relief of
asthma, glaucoma, arthritis, anorexia, migraine, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, nausea, stress,
for use as an antibiotic, an antiemetic, or as any healing agent, or as an adjunct to any
medical procedure or herbal treatment.
d. The term "hemp products for nutritional use" means the use of any hemp product intended for
human consumption as food, for example, but not limited to: seed protein, seed oil, seed cake,
or gruel, or any preparation thereof.
e. The term "personal use" means the use of any product or preparation of hemp, cannabis, or
marijuana, intended for any relaxational, ritual, spiritual, or other personal purpose.
f. The term "hemp intoxication products" means any hemp product other than industrial hemp
products, hemp medicinal preparations, or hemp products for nutritional use.
3. Hemp medicinal preparations are hereby restored to the available list of medicines in Alaska.
Licensed physicians shall not be penalized for or restricted from prescribing hemp preparations
for medical purposes to patients of any age.
4. Hemp intoxicating products shall be regulated in a similar manner to alcoholic beverages. For
the purpose of distinguishing personal versus commercial production, one-half ounce of cured
hemp flowers and/or leaves shall be considered equivalent to one gallon of dry wine.
5. The manufacturing, marketing, distribution or sales between adults of equipment or accessories
designed or marketed for use in the planting, cultivation, harvesting, curing, processing,
packaging, storing, analyzing, consumption, or transportation of hemp, industrial hemp products,
hemp medicinal preparations, hemp products for nutritional use, or hemp products for personal
use shall not be prohibited.
6. The enactment of this initiative is to be retroactive in its application to include amnesty
and clearing of all criminal records for all cannabis/marijuana-related acts which are hereby no
longer illegal. The Attorney General, within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this
initiative, shall develop and distribute a one-page application, providing for the destruction
of all criminal records in Alaska for cannabis/marijuana-related acts which are no longer
illegal. Such forms shall be distributed to all district and city attorneys and all police
departments in the State of Alaska, and be made available to persons hereby affected. Upon
filing such form with the Attorney General and payment of a fee no greater than fifteen (15)
dollars, all pertinent records anywhere in the State of Alaska shall be destroyed. Such persons
may truthfully state that they have never been convicted of cannabis/marijuana acts which are no
longer illegal.
II. The Legislature is authorized to enact legislation, using reasonable standards to determine
impairment, to regulate or prohibit persons under the influence of hemp from operating a motor
vehicle, heavy machinery, or otherwise engaging in conduct which may affect public safety.
Testing for inert cannabis metabolites shall not be required for employment or insurance, nor
be considered in determining impairment.
III. The Legislature is authorized to enact legislation, using reasonable standards, limiting
the use of hemp intoxicating products in public places.
IV. No Alaska law enforcement personnel or funds shall be used to assist enforcement of federal
cannabis/marijuana laws governing cannabis/marijuana-related acts which are no longer illegal
in the State of Alaska.
V. The Legislature, the Governor and the Attorney General are directed to challenge federal
cannabis/marijuana prohibitions which conflict with this initiative.
VI. Severability: If any provision of this initiative, or the application of such provision to
any person or circumstance, shall be held invalid by any court, the remainder of this initiative
to the extent that it can be given effect, or the application of such provision to persons or
circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby, and
to this end the provisions of this initiative are severable.
VII. If any rival or conflicting initiative regulating any matter addressed by this initiative
receives the higher affirmative vote, then all non-conflicting parts of this initiative shall
become operative.
VIII. Within one hundred twenty (120) days following the effective date of this initiative, or
by the end of the current legislative session, whichever occurs first, the Legislature shall
fund, from law enforcement savings hereby generated, an advisory panel to study the feasibility
and methods of making restitution to all persons who were imprisoned, fined or had private
personal or real properties forfeited as a result of criminal or civil actions for
cannabis/marijuana-related acts which are hereby no longer illegal. This advisory panel shall
consist of thirteen (13) members to be appointed in the following manner: Seven public sector
members, one appointed by the Governor, one appointed by the Lieutenant Governor, one appointed
by the Attorney General, two appointed by the Speaker of the House, two appointed by the
President Pro-tem of the Senate; and the remaining six to be chosen from the private sector by
the Legislature, three by the House of Representatives and three by the Senate. The advisory
panel will hold a minimum of six (6) meetings which will be open to the public. A preliminary
report shall be submitted to the Legislature within six (6) months of the formation of the
advisory panel. A final report shall be submitted to the Legislature and the public within one
year of the formation of the advisory panel.
IX. Purpose of Initiative: Construction. This initiative is an exercise of the powers of the
State for the promotion and protection of the safety, welfare, health and privacy of the people,
and the environment of the State, to allow for the industrial and medicinal type uses of hemp,
to eliminate the evils associated with unlicensed and unlawful cultivation, selling and
dispensing of hemp, and to promote temperance in the consumption of hemp as an intoxicant. It
is hereby declared that the subject matter of this initiative involves in the highest degree,
the economic, social and moral well-being and the safety of the State and of all its people.
All provisions of this initiative shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of these
purposes.
X. Effective Date. This initiative shall be effective when enacted according to law.
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT
Throughout the U.S., Canada, Europe, and Australia, many states and countries have recently
legalized industrial hemp and medicinal marijuana. Why does Alaska's Ballot Measure 5 go
further, legalizing hemp for all uses? Because there simply is no reason to punish
responsible adults for using marijuana in the privacy of their own homes.
Opposition to Ballot Measure 5 often focuses on relatively minor issues, such as the age
limit of 18 years rather than 21 as for alcohol. However, this distinction reflects marijuana's
far lower risk of abuse, and it will permit 18-to-20 year olds to work industrial hemp farms and
factories. Opponents assume that marijuana legalization for adults will increase illegal use
among young teenagers. Yet, in Holland, where cannabis has been decriminalized for those 18 and
over since 1976, rates of adolescent use are far lower, and the average age of first use is
higher, than they are in the U.S. Furthermore, Holland's policy reduces the likelihood of
marijuana users being exposed to heroin and cocaine dealers.
Ballot Measure 5 specifically calls for legislation prohibiting persons under the influence
of hemp from operating motor vehicles or otherwise endangering public safety. It allows local
option to further regulate and restrict marijuana use, subject to the constitutionally protected
privacy right. Although Ballot Measure 5 orders an advisory panel to explore restitution for
those convicted of past marijuana offenses, no expenditure of state funds is mandated. Indeed,
we will help reduce the cost of state government by ending the arrest, prosecution, and
imprisonment of adult Alaskans who choose marijuana.
Personal choices and public policies about marijuana should be based on scientific information
and common sense. Marijuana prohibition is the result of racism and politics, not medical
science. There is a long-standing scientific consensus that "Existing social and legal
policy is out of proportion to the individual and social harm" (National Commission on
Marihuana and Drug Abuse, 1972). In 1995, the British medical journal Lancet concluded "the
smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health." In March 1999, the
National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine confirmed that marijuana does not cause
physical dependence and is not a "gateway" to harder drugs.
In view of its low potential for abuse, hemp's vast potential as a medicinal and industrial
product demands its immediate legalization. The 1999 Institute of Medicine report verified the
therapeutic value of cannabis. Despite passage of Alaska's medical marijuana initiative in 1998,
most patients and their doctors are unable to obtain the drug. Ballot Measure 5 removes all
obstacles keeping patients from determining whether marijuana may be beneficial for them.
According to the North American Industrial Hemp Council, hemp fiber makes fine quality paper and
construction products such as wafer board (OSB). The stalk is excellent animal bedding and
mulch, and it can be used to manufacture concrete or plastics. Hemp seed is highly nutritious,
and hemp oil has been widely used in body care products, lubricants, and paints. To say that
industrial hemp promises enormous economic opportunities for Alaska is no exaggeration.
Free Hemp In Alaska
907-272-HEMP
STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION
LEGALIZED HEMP IS LEGALIZED MARIJUANA
The purpose of 99Hemp is to legalize marijuana. The initiative defines "hemp" to
include marijuana or any other variety of cannabis. It legalizes all aspects of marijuana
cultivation and use (not only medicinal use), including drug trafficking.
This dangerous and misleading initiative makes marijuana legally available to 18 year olds, many
of whom are still in High School, without parental knowledge or approval. Please do not be misled
to believe this initiative is for the development of a "hemp" garment industry. This
initiative will make Alaska the "drug haven" of North America.
All Alaskans must send a message that our foundational industries and professions including
aviation, oil, fishing, timber, mining, farming, government, teaching, military, tourism and
others have no use for marijuana/drug users.
If enacted, 99Hemp will:
- Threaten public safety. If it becomes legal, marijuana will be regulated in a similar manner to
alcohol. Distribution of marijuana through local liquor stores will make it more readily
available and socially acceptable.
- Allow more people to be driving under the influence of drugs and endangering the public. Since
marijuana is "fat-soluble" its effects persist much longer than alcohol which is
water-soluble. A single marijuana cigarette impairs an individual for over twenty-four (24)
hours. Marijuana is an addictive drug.
- Provide amnesty and mandate destruction of all criminal records related to marijuana convictions.
Drug peddling criminals who sold drugs to children or traded drugs for sex would actually have
their criminal convictions reversed.
- Use your tax dollars to pay "drug dealers and users" restitution for their prior
criminal convictions and civil forfeitures. This initiative creates a vast state marijuana
bureaucracy.
- Prohibit testing for marijuana by employers or insurance companies. The initiative undermines
drug-free workplace programs with the resulting dangers and decreased profits for Alaska
businesses. Drug users typically are involved in more accidents, file more workers' compensation
claims, utilize more health care benefits and are absent from work more often.
- Prohibit Alaska employers from engaging in federally-regulated industries including
transportation since they will not be able to meet the minimum federal drug-free standards.
- Prohibit Alaska law enforcement personnel or funds from being used to assist enforcement of
federal marijuana laws governing marijuana-related acts. This would cripple federal
investigations of money laundering, racketeering, drug smuggling and drug dealing, making Alaska
a major gateway for the U.S. drug trade.
- Require the Legislature, Governor, and Attorney General to challenge federal marijuana law in
conflict with the initiative. This will put Alaska in opposition with the federal government at
a substantial cost to the State.
- Endanger the economic, social, moral well-being and safety for all Alaskans, and send the wrong
message to our young people.
This initiative is "ill-conceived and devastating" for Alaska.
Please Vote "NO" on Ballot Measure 5.
Lynda Adams
Wevley William Shea
Anchorage
907-274-0020
Ballot Measure 6 - Referendum
An Act Relating to Management of Game
BALLOT LANGUAGE
Voters are asked to either approve or reject a law allowing hunters to use airplanes to land and
shoot wolves on the same day they fly. The law allows any person with a hunting or trapping
license to land and shoot in areas established by the Board of Game. No additional permit may be
required. The law also allows the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to use agents, as well as
employees, to engage in same day airborne shooting of wolves. A yes vote rejects the law. A no
vote approves the law.
SHOULD THIS LAW BE REJECTED? Yes or No
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY SUMMARY
This measure refers chapter 20 of the Session Laws of Alaska for the year 2000 to Alaska voters
for approval or rejection. The referred Act allows a person in certain areas identified by the
state Board of Game to take a wolf on the same day that the person was airborne. Only a valid
state license to hunt or trap is needed to take a wolf in those areas on the same day that the
person was airborne. No other permit may be required as a prerequisite for a person to take a
wolf on the same day that the person was airborne. The referred Act additionally allows agents
of the state Department of Fish and Game to shoot or assist in shooting a wolf, wolverine, fox,
or lynx on the same day that the agent was airborne.
FULL TEXT OF LAW TO BE APPROVED OR REJECTED
An Act Relating to Management of Game. Chapter 20, Session Laws of Alaska 2000.
*Section 1. AS 16.05.255 is amended by adding a new subsection to read:
(i) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, in an area for which the board has
adopted regulations under (e) of this section to provide for intensive management of an
identified big game prey population by establishing a wolf control program, a person may take a
wolf on the same day the person was airborne; however, a person may not shoot a wolf from the air
under this subsection. For purposes of this subsection, a valid hunting or trapping license is a
permit to take a wolf on the same day airborne for purposes of protecting wildlife, and no
additional permit may be required by the board or department as a prerequisite to taking a wolf
on the same day airborne.
* Sec. 2. AS 16.05.783 (b) is amended to read:
(b) This section does not apply to:
(1) a person who was airborne the same day if that person was airborne only on a regularly
scheduled commercial flight; or
(2) an employee or agent of the department who, as part of a game management program, is
authorized to shoot or to assist in shooting wolf, wolverine, fox, or lynx on the same day that
the employee or agent has been airborne.
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT
A YES vote on Ballot Measure 6 overturns the state legislature's recent reauthorization of
same-day airborne land-and-shoot wolf hunting -- an unsportsmanlike practice that an overwhelming
majority of Alaskans voted to ban in 1996.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game Commissioner Frank Rue says, "the practice of
land-and-shoot hunting is not acceptable to most Alaskans. To track and spot a wolf from an
aircraft, land, and then kill it is not considered to be a fair-chase method. We also know from
past experience that the practice leads to other abuses such as chasing wolves to exhaustion,
herding wolves and shooting wolves from the air."
Most hunters also regard the practice as unsporting. It is not "fair-chase hunting,"
according to the Boone and Crockett Club, founded by Teddy Roosevelt in 1887, one of the most
prestigious of America's hunting groups.
Same-day airborne land-and-shoot wolf hunting is also objectionable because it is unenforceable
due to the remoteness of Alaska; it is not an efficient way to control wolves when wolf control
is necessary because the random shooting of wolves in an area is not directed at the ones that
need to be controlled; and it gives wealthy urban airplane hunters an unfair advantage over
rural hunters who have to travel by snowmachine, boat or foot.
Voting YES on Ballot Measure 6 would only prohibit people with a hunting or trapping license
from using airplanes to hunt wolves on the same day. It would not prohibit more conventional
ground-based hunting and trapping of wolves. It would also not prevent Alaska Department of
Fish and Game professionals or their agents from shooting wolves from aircraft where wolf
control is needed to protect rural subsistence or enhance game populations.
The organization promoting a YES vote on Ballot Measure 6 is ALASKANS FOR WILDLIFE, whose
members include long-time Alaska residents former Lt. Governor, Lowell Thomas Jr.; former
Commissioner of Fish and Game, Jim Brooks; former Department of Fish and Game biologists, John
Schoen and Skip Wallen; former state Board of Game members, Douglas Pope and Joel Bennett;
founding member of the Alaska Conservation Foundation, Celia Hunter; past President of the
Alaska State Medical Board, Dr. James Thompson; outdoor writer, Richard Nelson; and wolf
biologist, Dr. Paul Joslin.
Please vote YES on Ballot Measure 6. It gets rid of a bad wildlife law while sending a message
to the Alaska legislature that voters meant it when they banned same-day airborne land-and-shoot
wolf hunting the first time.
Joel Bennett
Sponsor
STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION
A recent attack by a wolf on a six-year-old boy in rural Alaska highlights the need to "VOTE
NO" on Ballot Measure 6. The bill in question does not gut a 1996 voter initiative. It
simply corrects a flaw in that initiative that has allowed wolves to become a threat to life and
property in many communities in rural Alaska. A no vote will allow us to keep the corrected
version on the books.
A "NO VOTE" will help prevent a repeat of what happened on April 26th, when a healthy
wolf attacked a little boy playing outside his home near Yakutat. Fortunately, someone heard
the boy's desperate screams and came to his rescue as he was being dragged into the woods to be
eaten.
Just two months before this attack we were warned this would happen when representatives from
towns throughout our state came to the legislature for help. They pleaded with the legislature
to pass the law the animal rights groups are asking you to repeal. Wolves had decimated the
game populations these people rely on for food and were boldly entering their towns killing
family pets and threatening people. Their biggest fear was that starvation had removed wolves'
fear of man and that they would soon move to the next most vulnerable target -- their children.
The animal rights groups scoffed at their testimony and said this could never happen -- but
tragically it did. A no vote is your chance to stand with these Alaskans instead of the outside
animal rights groups -- the same groups who would end the Iditarod.
By voting no you are choosing to allow the Board of Game to keep an effective management tool
in their duty to manage both game and predator populations.
A NO vote on Ballot Measure 6 will:
Protect Alaska's families and allow the Board of Game, after a rigorous public process, to
permit shooting on the same day a person has been airborne "only in those areas" where
a serious threat from over-populations of wolves exists. Currently that would only be in a tiny
portion of the state -- roughly 5%.
Anyone who violates the ban, or harasses or shoots wolves from the air would still suffer
serious consequences.
This is not about sport hunting. It is about a game management tool for the Board of Game.
Taking away this tool because it somehow violates principles of fair-chase is the same as
requiring animal control officers in your town to give rabid stray animals a fifteen-minute head
start before they are caught and put to sleep.
Senator Pete Kelly
Statements on this page are the opinions of the authors and are
presented as submitted to the Division of Elections.
Alaska
Division of Elections Home Page