Groups seeking to amend the constitution to address a variety of hot topics are finding a tailwind from the frustration over the long-running oil check question. They can use it to alter the selection process for judges and restrict abortion.
The political turmoil of this year could make what is often a forgotten ballot question into a high stakes battle over the future direction of the state. In an age of deep partisan divisions, culture wars, and campaigns fuelled by wealthy donors from outside of state, a convention would allow Alaska’s foundational document for any type of revision. This is something opponents fear dangerous.
Talking about the constitution change is like walking around in a dynamite store room with a lighter. John Coghill, a conservative ex-state lawmaker who was one of the delegate to Alaska’s first constitutional convention, said that you need to be aware of what you are doing.
Alaska is one of three states in which voters will decide whether or not to convene a convention to examine amendments to the constitution. Missouri has not paid much attention to the question. It has received very little interest in New Hampshire where a group that opposes COVID-19 restrictions and mandates has considered starting a campaign to support a convention. Rebuild NH has not yet indicated which amendments it would favor.
All 14 states must hold periodic elections to ask voters whether they want to convene a constitution convention. Delegates are usually allowed to propose revisions or entirely new constitutions. These would then be sent back to the voters for ratification.
Voters have been calling for state constitutional conventions has become less common. Since 1984, when Rhode Island voters authorized the first state constitutional convention, more than 30 of these ballot questions have failed.
Since 1982, New Hampshire voters haven’t approved one. More than 100 amendments were discussed by delegates at the meeting, and 10 made it onto the ballot. Six were approved by voters, including one that would have required the legislature to meet once a year instead of every two years and ensured accessible polling places for disabled voters.
Today, the country is more divided.
John Dinan, a Wake Forest University political science professor who studies the topic, said that while a constitutional convention was once seen as a way for the people to be empowered and overcome the challenges they faced with government operation, people don’t trust that it will work. “There is a lot of fear about runaway conventions and opening up the Pandora’s Box of issues.”
This is what’s happening in Alaska where certain groups are taking sides on the issue that will appear on the November ballot.
The U.S. Supreme Court will make a mid-year decision in this case, which could significantly impact abortion rights across the nation. Many conservatives would like to eliminate the Alaska Supreme Court’s interpretation of the state constitution’s right-to-privacy as including abortion rights.
According to the conservative Alaska Family Council, calling for a convention is one of its top priorities. The amendment would state that nothing in the constitution could be interpreted as protecting a right of abortion. It supports issues related to school choice, and changes to the judicial select process.
Susan Orlansky is the interim executive director of American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska. She said that the existing precedent provides “pretty significant protection” for Alaska women to “continue to have reproductive freedom.” She said that her group is worried about the possibility of a convention. She said that a convention could lead to changes in the constitution that could weaken those protections.
Bob Bird, the chair of Alaskan Independence Party and a prominent advocate for conventions, is a prominent voice. He considers himself a mixture of populism, conservative Republicanism, and libertarianism. Bird, among other things has called for changes in the judiciary.
Bird says that despite the criticisms of a convention, the current political climate makes it a poor time to open the state constitution. It would be ignored as it was in the past.
In 2012, Alaska voters rejected a call for a convention almost 2-to-1 when the question was last on the ballot.
Coghill and other Republican ex-legislators, as well as Democratic former mayors, and a union leader, have joined a group called Defend Our Constitution in opposition to a convention. They fear that outside, deep-pocketed interests could try to influence the process. This could lead to delays in investments in Alaska.
Bruce Botelho is a Democrat who was involved in the convention opposition group. He said that there are many people who are angry at government, and this could be their chance to vote to vent their frustrations.
Supporters claim that the fears are exaggerated and that voters will not approve of a convention. They also believe that sharply divisive issues won’t go far if they do.
Similar concerns prevented the formation of a federal constitutional convention, which many Republican-led states had proposed in recent years to pass a balanced budget amend. People who are wary about constitutional conventions say they worry about the potential for the gatherings becoming free-for-alls. For example, Democrats trying to force spending on social welfare programs and Republicans trying outlaw abortion and prohibit gun control.
Bipartisan cooperation was key to the success of constitutional conventions in the past century, according to Justin Dyer, director of The Kinder Institute on Constitutional Democracy, University of Missouri.
He said, “We are in a very difficult partisan time right at the moment.” “The idea that both sides would have good will… it’s difficult to know if we could do that.”
