Citizens in Charge

As the 26th Alaska Legislature wrapped up its 2010 session late Sunday night, making it harder for citizens to use the state’s already-restricted initiative process was at the front of lawmakers’ minds. As the record shows, House Bill 36 was pushed through the entire legislative process - three readings in each house - on the last day of the session. All of its key provisions unnecessarily restrict voters’ rights.

On the bright side, the Senate Judiciary Committee amended the bill to remove a provision completely banning paying campaign workers who help circulate petitions by the signature. Currently Alaska restricts such payments to $1 per signature. Removing the ban is the only bright side.

Under the new law, which has yet to be signed into law by Gov. Sean Parnell, not only does any group receiving more than $500 in contributions have to report that contribution to the state, but the person making the donation also has to report. Because donating to an initiative can’t change what the initiative does - unlike donating to a candidate can change their behavior in office - disclosure is itself unnecessary. To add to it that the person making the donation has to jump through red tape makes this seem like s ploy to discourage people from making donations. This is just bad policy.

Going beyond that, the bill also creates a single-subject requirement. These requirements vary widely in their scope, but this one is the worst kind: it offers no definition of what constitutes one “single subject.” This insures that proponents of initiatives to come will be forced into the courts - at the expense of not only the parties involved but also the state - by opponents who challenge that their initiative violates the single subject requirement. This is not only bad policy, it is sloppy and irresponsible law making.

As a final insult, the bill dictates what groups that form to advocate for or against ballot measures can call themselves. Groups that intend to expend more than half their resources in favor of an initiative must have the ballot title of their initiative in their group name. Groups that are formed to argue against a ballot initiative must have words like “opposes,” “opposing,” “in opposition to,” or “against” in their names. Dictating how advocacy groups can identify themselves goes beyond bad policy, beyond irresponsible lawmaking, into territory that can only be called Orwellian.

Many of these restrictions strike at the heart of Alaskans’ right to free speech, and we wouldn’t be surprised to see them challenged in court.