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

By KELLY TSHIBAKA

I was born and raised in Alaska, believing this was an exceptional state that provides unlimited opportunity. Alaska changed the course of my family’s destiny. My parents went from living homeless in a tent to seeing me graduate from Harvard Law School.

Alaska is first in our hearts, but it repeatedly has finished near last in the nation with respect to crime, education, budget, and the economy. If my parents were homeless in Alaska today, I would be less likely to grow up in affordable housing or learn to read, much less attend a prestigious law school. 

It is time for Alaska to be first again. That is why I support Dan Sullivan for the U.S. Senate.

Sullivan is bolstering our economy by opening up ANWR for oil and gas development, overturning six decades of restrictions. He also has helped reduce regulations, fought for access to federal lands, and secured about $1.6 billion in funding for military construction across Alaska.

When the COVID pandemic hit us, Senator Sullivan was instrumental in securing billions of dollars of coronavirus relief for Alaskan families, small businesses, Native communities, and front-line healthcare workers.

Senator Sullivan is committed to our safety. He has helped secure $50 Million for public safety in rural Alaska. He has also played a key role in ensuring the investment of $2 trillion to rebuild the strength and power of our U.S. military, which was decimated by the Obama administration.

As the daughter of a long line of military service members, that matters to me, and I know it matters to Alaskans, too. Senator Sullivan is the only member of Congress who continues to be an active service member. He understands what is at stake if Biden wins and tries to reimplement the 25% cut to our military that occurred when he was VP during the Obama administration.

Senator Sullivan has confirmed over 200 judges who believe their role is to interpret the law, not legislate from the bench. Alaska has seen an appalling streak of lawless court rulings lately; we know it is critical we have a Senator who is committed to appointing judges who are dedicated to the rule of law.

Finally, Senator Sullivan understands Alaskans and will continue to serve us well in D.C. He may not have been born here, but he got here as fast as he could! Like many of our military service members, when he was stationed in Alaska 23 years ago, he fell in love with the state we love. He then spent his career as a dedicated public servant, serving Alaskans.

Whether continuing to serve in the armed forces, which he still does today, serving as Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources, or serving as Attorney General, Senator Sullivan has demonstrated his commitment to serving all Alaskans, and he is here to stay. 

Senator Sullivan will fight for us on Capitol Hill. He will stand firm for all Alaskans and he will help Alaska rise again. 

For every Alaskan family to have the same opportunities my family had, and so many other families need and deserve, we need to send Senator Sullivan back to D.C.

The views expressed here are the writer’s in her personal capacity and do not reflect her role as the Commissioner of the Department of Administration.

By SEN. MIA COSTELLO

As the national spotlight shines on Amy Coney Barrett during her traverse to the United States Supreme Court, amid protests in DC and calls that her nomination be stalled, hard-working American families are getting to know her a little bit better.

One fact that has come out is her commitment to her family, faith and other people. We’ve learned, too, that she and her husband responded to natural disasters far from home by opening their home and adopting two orphaned children.

There is no way to spin this: At its core, the decision to adopt is a decision to put someone else’s needs ahead of your own. The Barretts could have continued in their comfortable life as most of us do – for whom the plight of people in a distant country may mean nothing more than a token donation online.

When the tragedies in Haiti made news, and the world responded with aid and donations, the Barretts went further than most. They stepped in to personally work to give a new life to someone who had lost everything. And then, when tragedy struck Haiti again, they again responded by opening their home to another orphan.

I, too, was adopted and know that it is impossible to overstate the impact this has on a person’s life. The Barrett’s commitment to adopting two children, in addition to raising a special needs child of their own and their other children, should be celebrated, not condemned. 

Like the Barretts, my parents were Catholic, and before I knew what adoption was, they told me I was special, even though I had been given up by my natural mother. It took me until I was a parent myself before I really started to understand just what parenting meant and to raise another’s child is a labor of love. It’s that same type of selflessness that Amy Coney Barrett and her husband are demonstrating plainly for all Americans to see. 

Barrett’s qualifications for the job are obvious and unquestioned. Her story is inspiring, much like the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg whose seat she would fill. Her legal acumen, personal character, fairness, and intellect are universally acclaimed by those who know her: Notre Dame Law School students; fellow Notre Dame Law School faculty; and law clerks with whom she served at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Well-known liberal legal scholar Noah Feldman, with whom she served as a law clerk in the late 1990s,” I know her to be a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith, applying the jurisprudential principles to which she is committed. Those are the basic criteria for being a good justice. Barrett meets and exceeds them.”

Yet during the confirmation hearings Senator and vice-presidential candidate Kamala Harris similarly tried to suggest that Judge Barrett’s strengths are in some way weaknesses. She insinuated that Judge Barrett was somehow insensitive to the challenges facing ordinary individuals. But one look at her family makes clear that Barrett sees the suffering of individuals as something she has a personal responsibility to help alleviate. Judge Barrett’s strength of character is clear – as are Sen. Harris’s transparent attempts at character assassination for craven political purposes.

Americans saw firsthand that Amy Coney Barrett’s demeanor and poise are exceptional, her temperament is unflappable, and her empathy is unmatched. These are attributes that should be celebrated, not attacked. But in a sure sign of desperation and debasement, attack these qualities is exactly what some of her detractors have attempted to do.

In nominating Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump has made a sterling choice. No one knows for sure how a justice will perform on the court – but we can already see that she is a jurist whose judgment, priorities, and empathy are exemplary.

I realize that for some senators the decision to confirm is a complicated one, but I encourage the Senate to confirm Amy Coney Barrett and for Alaskans to let your voice be heard on this important imminent vote.

Sen. Mia Costello represents Senate Seat K, Anchorage.