Alaska Insight is supported in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and by viewers just like you.

Thank you.

Alaska's Constitution mandates that once each decade, Alaskans must vote on whether to hold a constitutional convention to rewrite the state's foundational document.

We wouldn't have a document that just sat on the shelf somewhere.

It has been amended, but otherwise unchanged.

Since 1956.

Advocates on either side are making their case for an up or down vote in November.

We'll discuss their positions right now on Alaska Insight.

Good evening and thank you for joining us tonight for a special one hour discussion on something all Alaska voters are asked once each decade.

And will be asked again this November.

Should the state's constitution be changed?

Not through amendment.

Something that has happened 28 times since the documents passage but through a constitutional convention where selected Alaska delegates could proposed changes that could rewrite some or all of the state's guiding document.

Before we begin that conversation, we'll start off with some of the top stories from Alaska Public Media's Collaborative Statewide News Network.

The Bering Sea Storm that hammered coastal Alaska last weekend pushed water into communities along hundreds of miles of coastline, flooding neighborhoods, moving homes, foundations and sinking boats that represent the livelihoods of so many coastal residents.

Although the cleanup and repair work will be extensive in some areas, no one was reported injured or killed.

The Alaska National Guard is activating all Guardsmen in the western region of the state and is deploying more to the area.

Governor Mike Dunlavey has issued a state disaster declaration and has requested a federal designation as well.

Law enforcement in Kodiak seized more than $650,000 worth of fentanyl, methamphetamine and heroin last weekend.

The bust was part of a major investigation into drug trafficking on the island.

Alaska state troopers say more than 11,000 blue fentanyl pills were seized.

Sergeant Garret Frost supervises the Troopers Statewide Drug Enforcement Unit in Kodiak.

He says Friday's bust was the largest seizure of fentanyl to date on the island.

Researchers monitoring the landslide at Barry Arm in Prince William Sound say recent movement there is significant in its speed and scope.

But they say they're no closer to knowing when a catastrophic slide might occur.

That could trigger a potentially life threatening tsunami near Whittier.

Seldovia geologist Bretwood Higman says the update should be taken seriously, saying it was, quote, the opposite of reassuring.

The State Department of Geological and Geophysical Surveys notes the slope is moving faster than it has since 2020 when monitoring began.

Higman says that kind of acceleration is something that can happen to slopes before they fail.

Now to tonight's topic.

The November ballot question on the constitutional convention.

Since its passage in 1956 Alaskans have voted yes only once to hold another convention in 1970 the measure narrowly passed but was overturned in court after the ballot language was deemed biased.

In 1972 the question again went to voters and was voted down but this year there are Alaskans actively campaigning on both sides of the ballot question.

And tonight we'll hear from some of the Alaskans who have taken positions on either side of this constitutional question.

And learn more about the process that would start if Alaskans vote yes on the ballot measure.

This evening's program seeks to clarify the question and what it could mean for the state's future policy decisions.

And next week, on Thursday, September 29th, Alaska Public Media and the UAA SeaWolf debate progr will host a live debate at the Wendy Williamson Auditorium in Anchorage at 7 p.m..

This is a free event, and the public is encouraged to attend.

The debate will also be streamed online so Alaskans can tune in statewide.

Before we meet tonight's guests.

We're going to take a look back at the history of Alaska's constitution, how it was developed in the 1950s, and what elements set it apart from other state constitutions.

We'll also hear how the permanent fund dividend, Alaska's fiscal woes and abortion access have some saying now is the time to vote yes.

While others say the document continues to serve the state well.

Erin McKinstry spoke to people on both sides of the issue and brings us this story.

The hour appointed by the Alaska Territorial Legislature.

For three months during the winter of 1955 and 1956 55 delegates from around Alaska created the state's founding document.

Then 31 year old Vic Fisher was among them.

Victor Fisher.

At 98 he's the last surviving delegate being late to the statehood game.

The Alaska delegates had the benefit of pulling the best parts from other states, constitutions and learning from past mistakes.

It is very much like the United States Constitution in terms of being short and specific.

The 12,000 word document has been updated 28 times since its passage, when voter approved amendments to allow for the permanent fund dividend, prohibit sex discrimination and create a right of privacy clause, for example.

But changing the Constitution on a broader and more fundamental level requires a convention.

Alaska is one of 14 states that regularly asks voters directly if they want to hold one.

Fisher can imagine a time for a new constitutional convention, but right now he worries about the cost.

The current political climate and the possibility of outside interests and money influencing changes.

They could throw big money, dark money at the Constitutional Convention and create a situation that would be just desperately miserable for Alaska.

But Republican Senator Robert Myers disagrees.

He sees a constitutional convention as an opportunity for long term planning to address fiscal questions about spending caps, the permanent fund, dividend and taxation.

Really, what we've seen over the last few years is some very significant changes in in our economy and in how things operate in Alaska and our Constitution.

Needs to reflect some of those changes.

Myers isn't alone.

A group of conservative activists and politicians have joined forces to create a formal campaign called Convention.

Yes, to advocate for the vote and not just to address fiscal issues.

The recent Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe versus Wade has some looking at how Alaska's right to privacy laws protects abortion access.

Advocates like Alaska Independence Party Chairman Bob Byrd want to change Alaska's judicial system, alter the education system, and more.

The left is the spark.

But when you get the spark like that and there's no limit to what a constitution convention might produce, then we can look at the incredibly long list of things that need correction bridges.

It's important for voters to understand that they're the ones in charge of the process.

The people get to control whether or not there will be a constitutional convention, and then we'll get to vote as to who our delegates will be.

And then we're going to get the board as to whether we like what is produced by the convention.

A yes vote raises a lot of questions like how much it would cost when it would be held and how delegates would be chosen.

One white paper put an estimated cost above $16 million, and Alaskans could spend all that money and time and then reject the changes at the polls.

Former Republican Senator Kathy Kissel, who's running for state Senate again right now, says it's too risky.

This is not the right time with emotions running high on so many different issues to try to sit down and craft a solid document that would continue to provide stability and a positive future for our.

State.

Keisel and Fisher, our co-chairs of Defend Our Constitution, a broad based coalition against holding a constitutional convention.

They agree that the current Constitution provides a strong foundation for Alaska.

A new constitutional convention can take the existing convention and dump it just start from scratch and do something completely different.

And I'm not sure that that makes any sense.

Voters will decide whether to hold the first new conventions and statehood on November 8th.

For Alaska Public Media, I'm Erin McKinstry.

Joining me to clarify their positions on why Alaskans should or should not vote to reopen the state's constitution is Jim Minnery.

Jim, is the president of the Alaska Family Council, a faith based organization in Anchorage.

And Jim is also a member of the steering committee for the Convention Yes Campaign.

Matt Shuckerow is a Republican strategist with Fathom Strategic Communications in Anchorage and the spokesman for the Defend Our Constitution campaign.

Welcome, both of you.

Thanks for being here.

Thank you.

Hey, thank you.

So, Jim, I want to start with you.

After seeing the story, Erin McKinstry reported.

What stands out to you about the concerns on both sides?

Vic Fisher worried about outside money influencing the outcome.

That's wonderful to speak on because as you probably know in the Alaskan should know, the biggest source of funding for the defend our Constitution side is a group called the 1630 Fund.

And most Alaskans haven't heard of that, rightfully because they're identified literally by the New York Times The Atlantic and Politico, three fairly liberal organizations as the largest dark money source in the United States.

And 2020 The 1630 Fund gave $400 million to progressive causes across the United States, which is actually more than the Democrat Party itself nationally gave So this is a behemoth of an organization that is known by liberals as being dark money.

And so they're the ones who are fueling the defend our Constitution side.

And I think that that should probably concern all Alaskans.

And then obviously concerns that Fisher, the only surviving member because he says he's concerned about dark money influencing the Constitution.

Well, all of the money essentially that's fueling the campaign to prevent Alaskans from having their say on the Constitution is funded by the liberal dark money.

So that's the first thing I think Alaskans should be aware of and concerned about.

Matt?

Well, look, I'm a Republican.

I work for a lot of Republicans and Republican causes.

And I'm here as part of defend our Constitution as a big growing coalition.

Republicans, Democrats, Independents.

And, you know, if you don't to take defend our Constitution's word for it, look at the dozens and dozens of organizations like Chambers of Commerce, Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, Ketchikan, Chamber of Commerce that have all come out against the Constitutional Convention, groups like the Economic Development Corporations, groups like the Alaska Miners Association.

There's a very grassroots driven, Alaska focused group that is looking at what a constitutional convention would do, the implications, the inherent risks that will inevitably talk about today.

And as we meet with Alaskans, we we know that as they begin to understand this issue, what really will come of a constitutional convention over the next four to six years or over the next decade?

People are really starting to understand this and joining this effort to say we're opposed to a constitutional convention in 2022, just not not the right time, not the best idea at this moment in time.

And we'd be happy to have more of this conversation.

That's what we're doing.

I appreciate being here.

It's part of the public discourse this is part of democracy.

Our founders said, let's go ahead, include this.

It's it's somewhat of a failsafe in our system, you know, if we're truly on the wrong direction.

But they've also included a more targeted amendment process.

It's a transparent focus, targeted process to see if we'd like to make changes, as we saw in the introduction.

28 times as Alaskans have successfully change the Constitution.

But more than 40 amendments have been presented through the amendment process over our history.

And that's what we see a more targeted approach is probably the best way to address some of these these shared concerns that that people may have in our Constitution.

So so, Jim, setting aside concerns over money what specifically would you want to see changed in the Constitution that you think the convention is the way to go?

Well, I think that the the interesting thing for Alaskans to know is that, yes, we do have a constitutional amendment process.

But there's a case called Best V Ulmer, which a lot of people may not be familiar with, was a very short prisoner's right constitutional amendment that was passed by the legislature.

And the Supreme Court of Alaska basically determined that in their words, it was 60 words, basically equating or saying that states prisoners would have the same rights as federal prisoners.

That's all it said.

It was literally 60 words.

And the Alaska Supreme Court said, we're going to call that a revision as opposed to an amendment.

And so because of that, we're going to determine that the people don't have the ability through that constitutional amendment process.

Typically, that that you said has passed, if they choose to call it a revision.

And so at the whim of the Alaska Supreme Court and their ability to call something a revision or amendment, that people have been removed from that process.

And so we think, yeah, you can say that we have had constitutional amendments passed.

But the ultimate reality today is that and that's what we're finding it really across the state, is that as people find out how much control the people of Alaska have, it's basically three steps.

We vote for a constitutional convention every ten years.

Then we vote we the people vote for the delegates, and then the delegates propose amendments.

Because I think that what's happened, a lot of people that hear the ads because there's so much dark money coming into Alaska from the 1630 Fund, literally $500,000 from a DC organization is very, very concerned about Alaskans having the ability to amend their constitution.

So that should get people's I think the back of their necks up because why is that so?

So the question though what do you want to change?

Well, let.

Me just add quickly though the three steps are the people vote on the constitutional convention, then the people vote on the delegates and then the proposed amendments go to the people once again for the third time, the people will get to decide.

We'll talk about this.

So that's the process.

But ultimately, what's animated the people of Alaska that we've talked to is that the left, based on what Bill Walker did in 20, 15.

Now, you can have a difference of opinion on whether or not you want a statutory fee based on the formula that was that served Alaska for 30 years.

And there never seemed to have been issues with it until Bill Walker came on board.

So what we're hearing from people is that the FDA is being used as a political football regardless of your view on the left, but it's halted progress in the legislature.

They've become dysfunctional.

And so people have the people that we've talked to and the more people that are coming on board are saying enough is enough, we now have our opportunity to put that issue aside, do the Constitutional Convention and allow the legislature to not use that anymore as a political football.

That's the number one thing driving the Constitutional Convention.

All right.

And Matt.

Well, there's a lot to unpack there, and.

I'm sure in the Constitution's, you know.

60 plus years old.

Yeah.

Why do you think it should be left alone right now?

Well, you know, I would love to just take an opportunity to address some of the things Jim said.

Look, and again, this is this is important.

I think as we head towards November, it's important to be having these discussions.

You know, you bring up a best verse, Omer, but it's important to note or encourage people to go look it up that this is a this this court ruling that was made in best for the summer.

There was three amendments there and the court actually approved two of them.

They said, hey, these were approved.

These and those were actually the definition of marriage in Alaska.

The the redefinition of the apportionment board for our redistricting.

So people would have you believe that it was just narrowly scope.

They rejected it and they said it didn't count.

There was actually three amendments that they ruled on, two of which passed, went to the voters and actually was voted for.

And those are amendments to our Constitution that passed.

But it was one that the court said, hey, this one is just not narrowly scoped enough.

We often in our government recognize we don't want these big appropriation omnibus packages.

They do in the federal government.

We've asked for things to be narrowly scoped and in this particular instance, the court did rule.

But the only instance the court has ruled in that in our 28 times of changing in the Constitution and over 40 times bringing amendments to to the people.

So, you know, we did talk a lot about process.

I think that's important.

You know, generally speaking, the coalition that I'm part of is it's people who often don't see eye to eye they, they disagree on a lot of issues and the party is one of those issues that maybe they disagree on.

But the general consensus is that no one issue is worth opening the entire Constitution to change in our Constitution through the convention process allows for what's called plenary powers, which says anything in the Constitution when it comes to convention can be subject to change.

Now, does that mean it's going to be a wholesale rewrite?

Not necessarily.

But it does mean, as was mentioned in Bob Burke by Bob Burton, the introductory anything is on the table anything subject to change.

And so there are a lot of groups that say opening the entire document to to change things like resource development, taxation, access to lands, hunting and fishing rights, some of these very unique things that Alaskans have have grown to really appreciate this this document that we have that provides us some of these very specific things, the shared resources that the abundant and sustainable yield provision for for hunting and fishing, those sort of things that people feel very protectionist over.

And I think the big thing is, you know, when you talk to the business community, when you talk to people about Alaska families and jobs, they know that a constitutional convention, the process four to six years and the better part of a decade to implement any of those changes would have a destabilizing effect on the economy.

It would be bad for investment.

And that's when you talk to businesses.

They say nothing is worse for the investment environment than having instability.

So that's a big, big, important factor.

All right.

And we'll we'll unpack some more that as we go forward.

But let's bring in Ann Hillman now and has been holding listening sessions with Alaskans to hear directly from voters about what they are most concerned about in the lead up to the elections this fall.

This in turn to in turn informs the reporting focus for journalists with Alaska Public Media The Anchorage Daily News and the Alaska Beacon.

And tell us about where you've held these voter engagement discussions and what you've heard generally.

Then we'll talk about the Constitutional Convention ballot question specifically Hi.

Thanks for having me on.

So we've held both online versions of these sessions, which have attracted voters from across the state as well as three in-person sessions here in Anchorage.

And soon we're going to be holding sessions in Kodiak and Kotzebue as well, as well as I've just been out in the community, I've been on events, I've been at rallies, I've been at the beaches in Kenai where people are debating, just talking to folks.

Someone was helping me and she was wandering around farmer's markets.

And as well as we had an online survey that we've gotten and I want to say 300 ish responses to from across the state.

And what we're hearing are people are really concerned about some of the things that you would expect.

Like folks are talking a lot about access to abortion.

People are talking a lot about climate change.

People are also talking a lot about campaign finance and where people are getting their funding from.

And that's across the political spectrum.

Folks are also really concerned.

They're sick of politicians who say, Oh, we're going to do X, Y, or Z.

And then as soon as they're in office, they don't follow through.

And that, again, was really across the political spectrum.

Other things I'm hearing are people still have questions about ranked choice voting.

I think less so now.

They've gone through it once, but folks kind of still have questions about the particulars of that.

And how we got here.

And then people do have questions about the Constitutional Convention.

What what specifically have you heard about ballot measure one?

So when I first started doing all this outreach over the summer, either you kind of had people who were like, no, that's this is not a good time.

I've made up my decision already.

Like, for a lot of the reasons that have been mentioned, like fears over political polarization, really driving what happens to the Constitution.

And then a ton of people were like what are you talking about?

Like, people just didn't know.

I think as time has gone on, people have heard more about this being on the ballot.

And now people have so many specific questions about the process because.

Yes, you say all right, people get to nominate delegates to go to the Constitution or go to the convention if we have it.

But how do you choose those delegates?

Like you can't follow the rules from the 1950s.

So how do you make sure that is representing all of Alaska?

How do you make sure that delegates represent different groups like people with disabilities or people with other who, with other means or other perspectives?

Like how do you make sure that it's really inclusive?

Right.

And there's a well we'll get into a process later, but like there's no set way to choose that yet.

People are very concerned about that.

Questions people have been asking a lot lately is, okay, so voters get to vote on changes to the Constitution.

What does that look like?

Do we change or do we vote on individual changes that happen?

Do we vote on all of the changes in one package.

And a lot of questions?

You're getting a lot of questions.

And when I think a lot of what I've heard is definitely that people want to know the answers to these questions before, like before they make this decision.

But we don't have solid answers to this.

Okay.

Let's hear some other comments from the Alaskans who were featured in the opening story.

First, we'll hear.

We'll listen to more perspective on why it should be reopened to deal with budget policy.

Here again is Senator Robert Myers.

So first and foremost, we have to address our fiscal situation and how that interacts with our economy.

We have to get some finality on the permanent fund and the dividend and how we're going to use that money and how that affects both our economy and how it affects our state finances.

We have to address our taxation and spending policy We have to address our spending cap.

We have a spending cap to get put in by constitutional amendment in 1982.

And it hasn't really been relevant because they set the bar so high.

And so we need something that is going to really.

Prevent this yoyo budgeting.

That we have been through for so many decades.

So when I review Article nine of the States Constitution that addresses finance and taxation Section 12 outlines the budget, saying essentially the governor submits a budget of expenditures and income and appropriations bill, a bill that makes recommendations for new or additional revenue There's of course, a section on the permanent fund, the statutory budget reserve and an appropriations limit, somewhat broad strokes.

Matt, is this a problem area, as Senator Myers suggests, should the Constitution be more prescriptive about the state budget process?

Well, look, you know, it's funny, I worked for Governor Doug Levy in my first year back from Washington, D.C. and we talked a lot about this.

But as we go into the convention, what's the what's the mutually agreed upon solution?

And this is the conversation we can have, but is Senator Meyer and others confident that if they go into the convention, the outcome they get is the one that they're advocating for today?

And the answer is, no one really knows.

There's not there's not full agreement on what a change to our Constitution would look like.

And as someone that I go in and I look at what a convention could could produce, I mean, it could produce big taxes on certain industry.

It could be a proposal on resource development taxes.

But but put to a vote of the people consistently.

It could be changing the way we do resource development or the change changing the way that we access our mineral rights.

So there are a lot of different things here.

And on the issues of the permanent dividend.

There may be a proposal again in the legislature.

There hasn't been a proposal that has met a more than 50% vote, and there may be a proposal that says Let's lock in the current Plan B system, let's lock in, let's get rid of the permanent fund altogether.

So we don't know what the answer will be.

And when we talk about uncertainty, that's what we talk about.

And there's so many other issues that people are passionate about that that we'll certainly get into.

Jim, is fiscal policy something that you're taking a position on?

Or think, as the Senator Meyer says, a constitutional convention is the way to fix the annual budget fight?

Well, I think I agree with Matt in terms of loving to have this conversation.

And that's what I think that the people of Alaska need to know is that the constitutional convention is our opportunity.

Your opportunity as an Alaskan to have the conversation.

And so I think it's interesting that the other side is so animated by fear.

Everything that they're pitching.

And remember the group I hate to keep bringing it up, but the 1630 fund, half of the things that you've mentioned and folks need to look that up.

The 1630 Fund is leading the country in efforts to stop resource development in terms of their funding in other states.

They're also leading the effort to stop Second Amendment and to impose gun control measures and yet they're ads that the 1630 fund is paying for is trying to scare Alaskans to say oh you might lose your Second Amendment rights.

Well first of all that's a federal right in the US Constitution the Second Amendment so it's impossible for us to actually ever do that.

So I find it disingenuous that the 1630 Fund, the largest liberal dark money source identified by the New York Times as such, is telling us as Alaska.

Ocean on fiscal.

I'm saying that there's many different things that will be addressed at the Constitutional Convention, and I think that Alaskans need to ask themselves, Are you afraid of yourself?

Look in the mirror and determine whether or not you're afraid of yourself, because that's what the 1630 Fund is doing in Alaska saying we don't trust Alaskans and that should speak volumes to everyone.

Let's move on to some more perspective from former Senator Cathy Geisel about why the Constitution should be left alone.

I, I view this.

Document as a firm foundation for our state.

It has carried us through devastating earthquakes, unimaginable floods everywhere and really difficult economic times.

It has been a firm foundation, and I would like to see that firm foundation stay in place.

I want to say thanks to Alaska Public Media's Elections Engagement editor and Hillman for updating us on voter events in addition to those engagement events, I want to remind our viewers that Thursday, September 29th, Alaska Public Media and the UAC Wolf debate program will host a live debate at the Wendy Williamson Auditorium in Anchorage at 7 p.m..

This is a free event, and the public is encouraged to attend.

The debate will also be streamed online so Alaskans can tune in statewide.

One component of the Alaska Constitution that's getting a lot of attention this year is the privacy clause.

Anti-abortion advocates and proponents of the constitutional convention have their eye on this section, which is the basis for reproductive rights in Alaska.

Alaska Public Media's Alyssa Longman explains what the privacy clause is and what could happen to abortion rights if a convention takes place.

The privacy clause of the Alaska State Constitution dates back to the early 1970s.

Around that time, concerns about the evolving information age, the use of computers and the security of individual private information were taking root In 1972, the Alaska Legislature drafted a constitutional amendment that explicitly guarantees the right to privacy and voters overwhelmingly approved it.

Over the years, legal decisions have defined what the right to privacy includes in Alaska.

It provides the right to shield personal information from public disclosure as well as the right to personal autonomy.

The right to privacy has led to some important changes in Alaska law.

It supports marijuana possession rights in our state, and it also is the basis for Alaskans reproductive rights.

Abortion has been a legal medical procedure in Alaska since 1970 before Roe v Wade, but the law included a provision that no hospital or person was required to participate in providing an abortion.

In 1997 that was challenged when a group of pro-choice advocates sued a hospital in Palmer that banned abortions.

The case reached the Alaska Supreme Court where justices ruled that the Constitution's privacy clause protects individual rights to make decisions about their own bodies and that includes the right to abortion.

In short, the ruling says reproductive rights are fundamental.

If a constitutional convention happens, experts say anti-abortion advocates could rewrite the privacy clause so that it excludes abortion.

Or they might write in a definition of life as beginning at conception.

In any case, Alaska voters would have the chance to decide whether to accept or reject the revised Constitution.

After the convention for Alaska Public Media.

I'm Melissa Block.

Andrew Kitchen, been the editor of the Alaska Beacon, joins us now.

Andrew, thanks for coming on.

You've covered state government in Juneau for Alaska Public Media and Cato before starting the Beacon.

Does Alaska's privacy clause stand out compared to other state constitutions?

Yes, I would say it does, based on what people in the legal system have said to me through the years.

There are 11 other states that do have some form of a guarantee of privacy in their state constitutions.

But often the language around that is qualifying.

So it might be a right to privacy in your home or a right to privacy unless there are other compelling state interest The way the Alaska State Supreme Court has interpreted the very simple, straightforward language of the privacy clause in the Alaska Constitution has been relatively strong as compared to other state supreme courts.

And Andrew, we've talked a little about this in the first part of the program.

But if Alaskans do vote yes, what is the process for electing delegates?

And how long do you think the timeline would be before there would be an actual convention.

Well, there's basically a couple ways delegates could be chosen.

They could be chosen under the rules set by the legislature The legislature has not set those rules.

It hasn't passed a lot of those rules.

Another way would be to try to follow the steps that are laid out in the 1955 Constitutional Convention.

There is an issue with that, which is that really it appears as though the rules that were used in 1955 conflict with U.S. Supreme Court rulings from the 1960s.

And so it may not be possible to exactly follow those rules because essentially it would get more say to some parts of the state versus others.

Well the U.S. Supreme Court has basically, Wolf, that elections need to give all voters equal say.

And is there clarity.

If there were a convention and delegates came forward with a suite of proposed changes would Alaskans have to vote on all of them at once.

Could they vote up or down on each proposed change?

Is that clear?

Who decides that?

Well, I should I should answer your first question, which is that as far as the timeframe, it would be the next election that the delegates would be chosen and the convention would be held after that, unless the legislature were to pass a law to have an election for delegates sooner.

So it could be a couple of years, at least the as far as voting all at once or in multiple votes, this may come back to.

The provision in the Constitution that gives the convention plenary power the sort of absolute power to conduct itself and to decide whether to write a new constitution or just have one amendment.

So basically, it could be either, although there are lawyers who have strong opinions one way or the other.

If if you were to interpret that plenary power as being absolute, which is a synonym for plenary, then basically you could see either like the convention could decide to have one vote for an entirely new constitution, one vote for a series of major changes to the Constitution or a series of separate votes for amendments.

One source has said that other states, when given this choice that the conventions have basically just had a series of amendments that were each voted on separately by voters.

All right.

Thank you for helping us get some clarity there.

Jim Wood, you talked a little bit about the permanent fund dividend issue, but would you say the privacy clause is your main focus?

And if so, how would you want to see it changed?

Well, I think what's interesting is and this is in Vic Fischer's book, so I think people should pick that book up.

It's called the Alaska State Constitution.

And as most people know that, that our following politics are all big.

Fisher is no conservative.

He's fairly liberal, especially when it comes to the abortion issue.

But to his credit, in his book, he puts down a quote from the consultants, and we try to tell this to everyone everywhere we go.

The consultants that Vic Fisher on the Judiciary Committee of the original delegation asked for.

They came from the lower 48 and the the original delegates to the Alaska state constitution said, what do you think of the way we choose our judges or we're proposing to set up our judicial judicial selection process?

And the quote, and I'm paraphrasing, is something along the lines of we've never seen another state give more power to the private bar association.

And they actually called it dangerous and to again, to the credit, he mentions that quote in in his book.

And then he further says that that consultant's report didn't ever make it to the full delegation floor.

So, in other words, the people that they asked for advice from on how we select our judges said we've never seen you give more another state, give that much power.

And so that is the answer to the privacy clause is exactly what?

I can't remember the guy's name that you just interviewed or the guy that just talked.

And Andrew basically said was it wasn't that the privacy clause provides that right to abortion.

He said the the court interpreted very strongly that it does have that right to abortion in it.

And what the Dobbs case did, what Samuel Alito said as a justice to the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dobbs case overturning Roe v Wade, was that we don't have a horse in this race.

The reality is that the US Constitution is silent on the issue of abortion.

It's a 10th Amendment right.

Every state gets to determine for themselves California is as pro-abortion as it gets.

New York is going to become more pro-abortion after that.

So what what I'm saying is that I think as a constitutional or a lover of constitutional law, I'm not a lawyer, but I love constitutional law.

It was a manufactured right in the privacy clause, just like it was in the U.S. Supreme Court.

So I think that what needs to happen is clear pretty of the neutrality of the state constitution.

In other words, it's not a pro-life or pro-choice amendment.

It's just saying our Constitution has nothing to say about abortion.

If you want to resolve the issue, then you go to the people.

That's why I keep on telling everyone that the constitutional convention is all about the people Three separate occasions.

All right.

So, Matt, your thoughts about the privacy clause and whether it should be rewritten or changed.

Sure.

And again, this isn't an issue that that for me to directly comment on it, frankly, I'm not the best person to speak on this.

But what I can say is that there are a lot of groups and organizations in the state, whether you believe this is a majority of minority opinion, that that this is an issue that will motivate them, that will get them out.

But on the issue, of of on this issue, there's people in this coalition who are on both sides of the issue.

And the underlying point is that no one issue is worth opening the entire Constitution, that it is highly uncertain.

And you know, I know that you talked about this broader conversation.

There is a risk to going through a three to five to seven year process.

And we hear that from the business community.

It's how do we attract new workers?

How do we attract new investment?

How do we fund new projects?

And I'll tell you, having the uncertainty of going through this, where every law is up for change, every amendment, it's I mean, it's it's essentially, you know, it's changes on steroids that are potentially that could come.

And that has a major chilling effect on on investment and on the business community.

So that's why we're hearing from people.

So there is a risk associated with entering into a convention.

That's what we talk about is the risk of people saying, hey, I'm going to I'm not going to make that business decision.

I'm not going to start that business.

I'm not going to invest $1,000,000,000 on the North Slope because we don't know what what is certain and what is not.

And Andrew, as you've observed, the ideas being put forward for why some Alaskans want a constitutional convention.

What are the main reasons and do the majority of what you hear do you think that those would be better suited to make proposed amendments rather than a constitutional convention.

Dating back to the last year where there seemed to be have met in a way that we really first I mean, I haven't been here for 60 years, but apparently has not been in previous ten year cycles on a constitutional convention question that was really centered around the lack of resolution of the formula for setting the permanent fund dividend and, and the the sense that the party is not currently protected in the Constitution before that.

The biggest current concern that I had heard over the years was from conservatives who disagree with the judicial selection process and particularly the implications that had on abortion.

They would like to see different justices chosen by a different selection process, interpret the privacy clause differently.

All right.

We're going to hear a little bit more about those exact elements.

Let's listen to another perspective on the privacy clause.

This from Joel Hall.

Joel is a labor organizer, the president of the AFL-CIO and co-chair of Defend Our Constitution.

Well.

Obviously, the right to privacy is the strongest right to privacy of any one in the whole country.

We have very clear delineations about the what cities and boroughs shall do.

Our class of boroughs.

We have a way to we have one of the best judicial selection systems in the country, maybe even in the world.

I like the fact that we don't elect certain people in lower 48.

They elect the attorney general.

They elect the dogcatcher.

They elect all kinds of people.

We have a relatively small number of people that we elect, and I think that actually is a good thing.

We have strong rights for workers in terms of the right to privacy.

And the right to when you earn your retirement benefits, you get to retain those retirement benefits that can't be taken away from you.

And all.

And of course, you don't have a right to work in the Constitution, which is a very small niche issue for us.

But that's obviously very important.

I think most Alaskans want to be able to make a living and be left alone to enjoy our beautiful state and our Constitution allows us to keep this state beautiful, protect individuals rights and and still work together for the common good.

When the people have.

Before we discuss this further.

Let's hear one last comment from Alaska Independence Party Chairman Bob Byrd, who is supportive of a Constitution convention.

When the people have a voice to rewrite a constitution, we might repudiate Article 12, Section 12 of our Constitution, which says that we forever disclaim ownership to federal properties.

It simply should be we disclaim constitutional or we we disclaim all but the constitutional federal properties which are forts, arsenals, magazines, dockyards and other needful buildings.

That's one.

The permanent fund dividend is being raided for the sake of a bloated bureaucracy.

The people are fed up with that.

They'd like to see this as a constitutional mandate.

Thirdly, the Judicial Council is a rigged system.

It was recognized as such when the Constitution was developed debated in 1955.

And the feeling was, well, if it doesn't work out in ten years, people will be able to amend it or change it.

So I think we need to have less influence from the Alaska Bar Association and to force feeding the governor the nominees to the judicial vacancies.

All right.

We talked a little about this earlier Jim, I want to start with you.

Bob Byrd, as we heard, wants the judicial selection process to be overhauled.

You spoke a little about that.

What is your position?

How do you think judges should be selected?

I think that what the consultants provided to the original delegates is something all Alaskans should familiarize, familiarize yourself with in that the power given to a very small group of people.

I think there's about 4000, maybe 3500 attorneys in the entire state.

So it's a tiny percentage of people that are in charge, literally of a third of the branch of government.

And so I my my opinion is that elections should matter.

And so my opinion is not what set in stone.

It's going to be the people of Alaska that ultimately make the decision.

But my personal opinion is that the judicial selection process should be reflective of who has been elected.

And we've seen that recently with the US Supreme Court nominee by Senator or by President Biden.

And it didn't seem that there were very many people on the left that were opposed to that process.

In fact, they were supportive of the fact that President Biden appointed, as many people expected, someone that had a judicial temperament that was probably more in line with President Biden.

That doesn't take place in the state of Alaska.

We are a red state.

There's no doubt that based on the number of Republican governors who have had their selections thwarted by this very border control, the Alaska Bar Association controlled Council of unelected People, that the Republican governors haven't been able to appoint people to the judiciary that are reflective of their judicial temperament.

So I think they see that change.

I think it should be.

My personal opinion is that the Alaska State Constitution should be changed so that whoever is in the office of governor, whether it's a liberal or whether it's a conservative, that that individual in that executive branch should have the ability rather than a very small group of bar association members.

That conservatives, a lot of conservatives have pushed for changing the Judicial Council process for a long time.

What do you think should happen there?

Well, look, you know, it's funny you talk about this issue.

There's not consensus on what the change would even look like.

There's there's changes if you propose there's changes to the Judicial Council.

There's changes to having elected elected judiciary, as they do in other states.

And that's kind of the general consensus here, is that on all these issues, these controversial or maybe HOT-Button issues that would be presented on it in a convention, that there's not a there's not a consensus and there's no certainty of what the outcome looks like.

And it does speak more to the volume of that.

This process would be entirely uncertain.

We don't know exactly who would be delegates.

We know that legislators would be eligible to run as delegates would likely serve.

And it's not to say that the same problems that we've seen over the last five or six years in Juneau won't be the same challenges that we see in in a convention.

It's going to be a very costly process.

We know that it'll you know, $17 million or so.

So again, on this issue and so many others.

Again, this the coalition I'm part of there's people on both sides of this issue.

You've heard from Joel Hall, who has you know, who who believes it's a strong judiciary.

There's others who who who who have some comments that differ a little bit.

But the common theme here is opening the Constitution to so many other changes while trying to address a target of change.

It can be done through a more targeted amendment process.

And there are amendments that have been brought forward to change the judiciary.

They haven't even they haven't received the support even of the legislature.

And Andrew, in your reporting on other state governments and that judicial process, talk a little bit about how it how Alaska's compares and contrasts.

Generally speaking, you have people who practiced law in Alaska have a larger say than in other states, while elected officials have a larger say in most other states.

In many states, the legislature has a large say in the process, and Alaska legislature has no tax, no part in the process.

Other other than some laws related to that has passed laws related to the process.

But it's really laid down in the Constitution.

The governor picks half of the nine of the council that recommends judges to the governor, half the members or three of the seven members are from the governor, three are from the bar association, and one is the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

And so certainly you have states where judges are chosen by elections, their elected officials, like other politicians in other states, the executive has a huge say over it.

And in other states, it's a mix of the executive, the governor and the state legislature.

Andrew, if the main idea, and I think it is for some folks, is to take the heat out of political rhetoric, out of policy deliberations.

How do you think that would work in this, particularly now, this extremely overheated and divided political climate?

I wrote a story about a year ago for Alaska Public Media and KTLA in which the state quoted an interview you had done with Vic Fischer, and he said that this is about as bad a time to have a new convention as there ever could be or could have been, because we are so divided as a people He pointed to the partizan division in the state, and he said that of the delegates at that time, nobody was out to win.

And he said the delegates this time would study how they can win.

All right.

We are rapidly running out of time, as so often happens in these interesting conversations.

Jim, do you think that if Alaskans vote against the idea of a convention, that you will then pursue support for amending the Constitution?

You know, we always have.

We've we've we've had there's several amendments right now that are in the process of you know, that are in the bin in the legislature.

It's just that there's been so much dysfunction.

And that's really what we're seeing on a statewide level as we reach out to people, is that they're so tired of what's going on in Juneau.

I don't know of anyone that says, wow, that's a really productive, healthy environment down there right now.

Everyone seems to understand that the dysfunction and the divisiveness.

So I don't think that we can say, well, because it might be divisive if we have a convention or it might be people might be real vocal.

I think that's good that people are vocal.

I really believe that Alaskans want to have a conversation about what is what is best serving, what is best serving them about the Alaska state constitution and what might be changed.

Certainly will continue to move forward with things that we think should be changed if we don't pass the constitutional convention.

But I think that Alaskans ultimately want to have more say in their constitution, and this is the opportunity.

Andrew Kitchen of the Alaska Beacon, thank you so much for being with us today.

And Matt.

Final word from you about what you'd like to see moving forward here.

Sure.

And you know, just one comment on the judiciary.

There are eight or nine states that do have a similar judiciary as Alaska.

Again, people are welcome to look it up.

And a number of those are conservative red states.

Some of those are progressive, more liberal states.

And so, again, it's not Alaska is not this process.

We have a system, an assisted appointment system with a make up.

The board makeup that we have.

Again, there's other Republican states, other Democratic states that follow this process.

Look, it's an honor to be here.

It's exciting to have had this conversation.

I think it's important.

You know, I'm I'm honored to be part of this coalition because it's a big sort of broad based coalition.

I know we've talked about that a lot.

I would encourage you to go look at our website, defend a Constitution, AECOM.

And there's there's hundreds and hundreds of Alaskans and countless, countless organizations that have all come out for their own independent reasons.

And these are citizen bureaus, non-profits, native corporations, NGOs, business communities, chambers of commerce, who have all made their own determination.

And they've looked back on our history, and they've reached the same conclusion that we have over the last five decades, not the right time, not the right place to make these big.

And, Jim, in a few seconds, Matt gave their website.

What's yours?

Conventionyes.com Scott, we'd be honored to have we don't have a huge list of of organizations because ours is truly grassroots but go to conventionyes..com we have some videos and we'd we'd be honored to have you be a part of the case.

All right.

Thank you both for being here this evening.

I really appreciate your time.

Thank you.

The strength of a democratic society is that all individuals have equal power through their vote.

No one's vote has more influence than any others, regardless of economic or social status.

But that right also comes with a responsibility to educate ourselves about the issues being voted on and to listen to the facts and differing perspectives from all sides so we can make the best informed decision for our families, communities and state for this particular ballot issue.

Join us on Thursday, September 29th at 7 p.m. in the Wendy Williamson Auditorium in acreage for a live debate hosted by Alaska Public Media and UAC Wolf debate program with Alaskans both in support and oppose to opening the Constitution, where they will lay out their positions.

And then you Alaskans can decide how you'll cast your vote in November.

The event is free and open to the public and will also stream online.

That's it for this edition of Alaska Insight.

Be sure to tune in daily to your local public radio station for Alaska Morning News and Alaska News nightly every weeknight.

Be part of important conversations happening on Talk of Alaska every Tuesday morning.

And visit our website.

alaskapublic.org for breaking news and reports from across the state.

While you're there, sign up for our Free Daily Digest so you won't miss any of Alaska's top stories of the day.

Thanks for joining us.

I'm Lori Townsend.

Good night.

Once each decade, Alaskans are asked whether to hold a constitutional convention.

The question on the November ballot has always been voted down in the past, but some Alaskans think it's time to reopen and revise the state's guiding document.

Join Alaska Public Media and UAA SeaWolf debate program at the Wendy Williamson Auditorium.

In Anchorage for a live debate on the pros and cons of a constitutional convention.

That's Thursday, September 29th at 7 p.m.. More information at alaskapublic