REJECT BOTH BALLOT MEASURES, KEEP OUR DREAM TEAM TOGETHER

By PAULETTE SIMPSON

Election fatigue is setting in, so my media fast has begun. Radio and TV are off. Facebook not my thing. What’s left to skim are Wall Street Journal, National Review, Must Read Alaska and, for balance, the LA Times, ADN and Juneau Empire.  

I’ve voted in Alaska since 1978.  Election 2020 arrives amid a historic and life-altering pandemic.  Schools are closed and thousands have lost jobs. It’s tough to maintain equilibrium during turbulent times.  

There are also ways to make things worse on Election Day, beginning with the ballot measures.

Significant changes to oil taxes and election law are best duked out in the legislative arena.  

Ballot Measure 1 would change Alaska’s oil tax policy for the eighth time in 14 years. That’s banana republic.  Investment requires a stable business environment.  Just say NO on Ballot Measure 1.

It takes 25 pages of fine print in the Official Election Pamphlet to describe Ballot Measure 2. It’s a confusing cluster of high-minded ideas that would merge our two primary election ballots into one with candidates from all parties competing against each other. For the general election, we’d be forced into the radical “ranked-choice” method of choosing the winner from the top four that survive the free-for-all Primary. 

Ballot Measure 2 did not bubble up from our local Assemblies or community councils. These days, to ditch the deliberative process and avoid public hearings, Outside interests simply buy their way onto the ballot. 

Political parties are easy targets for the chaos-loving sponsors of Ballot Measure 2. I maintain that even with their warts, political parties foster engagement and commitment to ideals. Both of Alaska’s major parties recommend voting NO on Ballot Measure 2.

Statewide races:

Alaska has one of the most effective and collaborative congressional delegations of any state in the country. The most storied coaches in history could not have fielded a finer team for our tiny state. 

Lisa Murkowski, Dan Sullivan and Don Young align with the Republican Party, but they do not share a political mindset. Depending on the issue, each occupies a different place on the political spectrum, and each brings different strengths, life experiences, and personalities to the team.  Murkowski appeals to many center-left moderates, while Sullivan satisfies those more inclined to center-right and with ties to the military, regardless of party.  

Don Young has always been an enigma. He has earned union backing and the loyalty and affection of Alaska Natives, going back to his days in Fort Yukon and 46-year marriage to his Athapaskan wife. Yes, Don is an “old white guy”, but he’s not sidelined in a bullpen (or basement).  

No one lives forever. We all get that, and Don does too.  But Don’s still on his game. To retire him now and send in a free agent rookie instead would be a major unforced error.

Speaking of rookies. What is going on with Alaska Democrats? Not that long ago, Democrats nominated serious and substantively experienced players like Tony Knowles and Fran Ulmer. Fran had served as Juneau mayor, in the State House and as lt. governor before running against Frank Murkowski for governor. An accomplished politician and proud Democrat, Fran was well-known, well-liked and genuinely committed to Alaska.  

Democrats are favored to win nationally this year, yet Alaska Democrats continue to actively hide from their party’s brand, preferring to field and fund fake “independents” for state legislative races. They also nominated so-called “independents” for our sole congressional seat and the U.S. Senate seat held by Dan Sullivan. 

Never having played in a political league at any level, these two rookies don’t even qualify as back-benchers. Most people in his hometown of Juneau did not know who “Dr. Al” was until big money from Outside created the bear slayer and fisherman persona to market to Alaskans. 

We’ve had enough upheaval this year.  

When something really bad happens suddenly – you lose a job or partner or a pandemic strikes – it’s best to stay calm and not do anything rash. Don’t sell the house and move to Mexico or convert your IRA to bitcoin.

We’re in the clutch. Reject both ballot measures as disruptive end-runs around the legislative process and keep our D.C. dream team together for another season.  

Paulette Simpson writes from Douglas, Alaska.

By CHAD HUTCHISON

Respectfully, I’m voting “no” on Ballot Measure 1.  “All or nothing” direct initiatives are generally an unwise way to change complex state policy.  Ballot Measure 1, which focuses on our complex state oil production tax, is no exception.   

Noteworthy:  Prior to the “vote of the people,” Alaska’s courts largely allow “broad leeway” for citizen initiatives that don’t have clear, egregious legal infirmities.  What does that mean?  The initiative may pass the minimum initiative standards for a statewide vote, but that does not necessarily mean they are insulated from future litigation, once they become law…especially as practical “implementation problems” arise.       

While the merits of changing our oil tax structure is debatable in some circles (substantially similar legislation to raise oil taxes failed to get support in the legislature over the years, as many still remember the not-too-distant, detrimental consequences surrounding ACES), Ballot Measure 1, if passed, may lead us down an uncertain, risky path.  

Uncertainty is likely because of the way the initiative is written.  Potential issues, including constitutional issues, arise and may not be quickly resolved through subsequent statute and/or regulation.  

Here is just one example:

Section 7 focuses on the disclosure of “all filing and supporting information” for the payment of taxes for producers at fields including Alpine, Kuparuk, and Prudhoe Bay (“the fields”).  There is no distinction between “confidential” and “non-confidential” records.  

If implemented, Alaska would be the only regime to require public disclosure of all documents associated with tax filings.  

As written, “all” records (including amended returns, audits, settlement negotiations, speech/communications between company personnel and Department of Revenue staff) no matter how sensitive (or useful to competitors) “shall be a matter of public record.”  

Does this raise equal protection concerns under Article 1, Section 1 of the Alaska Constitution?  In other words, are similarly situated people (i.e. a  handful of Alaska-operating energy companies) being treated differently, even within the state of Alaska?  Some are forced to disclose, depending on parameters designed by the initiative-backers, some aren’t.   

If “all” records concerning the legacy fields are compelled for disclosure (including normally privileged speech or speech protected under Article 1, Section 5), is “all” the least restrictive alterative?  Are the initiative proponents’ reasons “enough” to create this special disclosure requirement specifically for the producers at those fields?   

Also, Alaska, historically, has a broadly interpreted right to privacy (found in Article 1, Section 22 of the Alaska Constitution).  That same right to privacy protects private interests against government overreach.  

Alaska’s judicial interpretation of this right explains why the 1975 Ravin decision (which allowed personal use marijuana in the home) held for so long and why pro-life advocates have struggled on the issue of abortion in Alaska).   

Couple that “privacy interpretation” with the consistently-evolving-granting-of-rights for corporations in the United States (thanks to cases from the US Supreme Court, including the Citizens United decision (which, itself, was built using decades-old “building blocks” of Supreme Court precedent for corporations going back to the 1800s)).   

In these circumstances, how much does the public disclosure of “all filing and supporting information” correlate with Alaska’s unique constitutional right to privacy? 

These are all open questions.  

Answering those questions will take time.  

In some cases, if history is an indicator, timing is critical…and opportunity may be fleeting for our state (as investment decisions are measured against other world-wide jurisdictions).  

In 2020, eliminating “question marks” is critical for all of us.  If the voters approve BM1, there will very likely be an extended period of uncertainty within the petroleum industry.  The terms of the initiative, as evidenced by, minimally, Section 7 (where the government is forcing public disclosure of all tax-related documents), will generate conflict, delay, and possibly litigation. 

That’s bad for the producers, bad for potential investors, and most of all, bad for Alaska.  

Chad Hutchison was born and raised in Fairbanks, Alaska.  He is an attorney.  

Editor:

Rarely do I get involved directly in our District 6 politics. This year I have to make an exception. 

A spoiler has entered our District 6 race as a so-called conservative. He has not supported our president and he bolted the Republican Party to avoid running against Mike Cronk in the primary.

Now he is set to be spoiler by splitting the conservative vote and handing the district and our future to a leftwing activist who claims Nenana as her home.

With the conservative vote split and liberals now seeing an opportunity she can win with only 35% of the vote, they have been pouring money into her leftwing campaign. That would be a disaster for our district, as the values we cherish are one by one being threatened by the radical left.

I urge all conservatives to support Republican Mike Cronk. Please do not waste a vote for a spoiler who is trying to present himself as a credible conservative candidate. Any person who has manipulated the system to avoid the primary and has bolted the Republican Party as an officer does not speak credibility or trust. His so called “legislative expertise” is also misleading.

I know Mike Cronk and his incredible family. Mike is not a politician. Mike strongly supports a full PFD as written in statute. He is one of us and will fight for conservative values and our way of life we cherish so deeply.  Finally I want to make it clear I am writing this letter of concern on my own, having served as a representative and senator over a 10-year period. Thank you for taking my concerns seriously.

Sincerely,

Dick Shultz