A citizen’s right to petition their government is a right reserved to the people of Alaska granted by Article 11 of the Alaska State Constitution. The concept of the initiative is based on the principle of direct democracy – the people’s ability to change law and policy themselves rather than having to do so through their elected representative. This right is held so close to Alaskans, and it is important to guard this process from abuse.
In the past few election cycles, it has become wildly apparent to Alaskans that their initiative process does not serve the best interests of the people. Special interests have hijacked the citizen’s initiative. Sources of funds are hidden. Contributor’s identities are veiled. Alaskans deserve better. Alaskans deserve an open and transparent process.
I have introduced legislation that does just that. House Bill 36 will make the initiative process more open to the public, including public hearings and more financial disclosures. The current laws governing the initiative process are easy to skirt, and special interests have used the system to their advantage. The initiative process is a tool that belongs to the people of Alaska, and as such, it should be safeguarded from special interests with self-serving goals.
The financial disclosure process for initiatives is flawed. It is easy for groups to hide sources of money, and to the extent that the voters don’t even know about the main funders behind an initiative until the election has come and gone.
This is completely unacceptable, and Alaskans should be outraged that this has been allowed to occur. Allowing financial disclosure loopholes of this magnitude undercut the integrity of our initiative process. House Bill 36 proposes changes to fix these flaws and repair the loopholes. House Bill 36 changes the date of when financial disclosures must begin. Rather than being able to collect money for months and months before having to disclose the source of funds, groups would have to begin financial disclosures as soon as they file their initial paperwork with the Lieutenant Governor’s office. Although initiative groups have to collect a number of signatures in different regions before officially being declared a measure on the ballot, the groups are still influencing public policy. Initiative groups should be filing financial disclosures as soon as they receive their first red cent.
Signature gatherers are an instrumental part of the initiative process. They collect the constitutionally-required signatures necessary to qualify initiatives for the ballot. We often see them outside of the grocery store or any high-traffic zone. Their goal is to gather signatures. Period. They are often paid on a commission basis, so they are motivated to gather as many signatures as possible. They are not paid to answer questions or explain issues. If signature gatherers were paid on an hourly wage basis, they would be more open to take the time to explain the issue or answer questions posed by voters. House Bill 36 proposes that signature gatherers be paid on an hourly or salary basis so that they wouldn’t be shuffling people as fast as they can to make their dollar. Restricting the use of per-signature commission is yet another attempt to promote the sharing of information so that voters can make the most informed decision at the ballot box.
Public hearings are a necessary and essential part of the political process. Public hearings are the venue where questions are posed, ideas are vetted, and information is freely shared. Public hearings are the foundation of the lawmaking process. All potential laws that govern our behavior, our property, and our interests are all vetted in a public forum, right? Wrong. There are no public hearing requirements for ballot measures. Laws created via the Legislature and laws created via initiative are equal – they are the laws we are required to live by. However, initiative-created law does not go through a public process that enables citizens to ask questions, criticize, give suggestions, or clarify issues.
Holding public hearings would greatly strengthen the initiative process because they would provide more information to the public. The public deserves to know the ins and outs of initiatives, just as the ins and outs of legislation are hashed out in committee meetings. House Bill 36 solves this problem by requiring public hearings throughout Alaska. Because of the geographical challenges and dispersed population of our state, a total of ten public hearings are required, two hearings per judicial district. These hearings provide a public forum so voters can ask questions, analyze the issues, and voice their support or opposition. These public hearings won’t cost the initiative sponsors a dime; the venue can be provided by the state, and if initiative sponsors cannot afford to travel to the different districts to participate in the hearing personally, they can teleconference. House Bill 36 provides a win-win situation: more information provided to the public, while not costing the ballot measure groups anything but their time.
In addition to the public hearing requirement, House Bill 36 also requires a standing committee of the legislature to review ballot measures. This does not allow the legislature to change the ballot measure because that would be encroaching on a citizen’s right to petition their government. Instead, the legislative review allows another public venue for questions to be asked and concepts to be discussed. Also, the legislative review provides a forum for the affected agencies to discuss how the proposed initiative would be administered.
The loopholes with the initiative process have become apparent all over the country, not just in Alaska. About half of the states in the Union have the initiative process, and many of those states are modifying their initiative process with tighter financial disclosures, public hearing requirements, and restructuring signature-gathering methods. These modifications are seen as ways to reinforce the citizen initiative process – to protect it – not to impose onerous and meaningless requirements.
Providing more information to the public is the purpose of House Bill 36. There is no fine print. There is no catch. House Bill 36 returns the power of the initiative back to the rightful owners: Alaskans.
Return to newsletter headlines
