Constitutional Convention Vote Carries Risks for Alaska
special interests and considerable funding to influence the required election of Convention delegates, creating an opportunity to influence the drafting of the new constitution to promote special interest agendas. We have seen special interests target the resource development industries before. Tens of millions of dollars have been spent defeating destructive policies proposed in 2006, 2008, 2012, 2014, 2018, and 2020. If ballot measures have taught us anything, it is that Alaska law is best deliberated in the open and transparent Legislative process, and establishing law by alternative means creates the uncertainty that inhibits investment in Alaska. For instances in which there may be a need to change a section of our Constitution, Article 13, Section 1 provides for that to be accomplished through the legislative process that is both targeted and transparent. Of the 40 times this legislative process for amendments has been used, 28 amendments have been successful. This specific process can and should be used to address any issues needing the attention of Alaskans, rather than the blunt instrument of a Convention that fully opens the whole document to scrutiny and potentially creates years of uncertainty that would inhibit or prevent investment in Alaska industries. We know that some are advocating for a Constitutional Convention to address issues like the Permanent Fund Dividend, a spending cap, and social issues. AMA has not and will not address these issues. Our position is solely based on our desire to have regulatory certainty, which we believe is provided for in the existing Constitution. Our position is not partisan, and it is not political. It is business. Alaska’s miners have too much at stake to risk an overhaul of our regulatory process, and that is solely our basis for opposing a Convention. If you have questions or which to further discuss this issue, please direct your inquiries to Deantha Skibinski, AMA Executive Director, and she will distribute them to the AMA State Oversight Chairs and the AMA Executive Committee. “A convention would create years of economic, legal and regulatory uncertainty, and would inhibit or prevent investment in Alaska industries … AMA opposes the establishment of a new Constitutional Convention as unnecessary, expensive, and dangerous, with the risks outweighing the reward.” — Alaska Miners Association
Dear AMA Members and Friends: In May, AMA adopted a position of opposition to holding a Constitutional Convention. While we shared this then, recent public narrative has called our decision into question, so we’d like to further communicate how and why AMA arrived at this position. In addition to this email, this Friday’s Statewide Zoom meeting will focus on AMA’s position and include a discussion on this topic. Information on that meeting may be found here. By way of background: Alaska Constitution requires that every 10 years, if a Constitutional Convention has not been held, the Lt. Governor of Alaska must place on the General Election ballot a question to voters on whether a Convention should be held. In May, the State Oversight committee put this issue on its agenda for discussion. As a reminder, the committee consists of over 60 AMA members, representing all eight of our statewide branches and has miners from large mines, placer mines, exploration and development projects, contractors, consultants, and other professionals that support our industry. The committee carefully considered the upcoming ballot question on a Constitutional Convention, and we concluded that the risks of upheaval to our existing regulatory system are simply too high. After, the State Oversight Committee recommended to AMA’s Executive Committee that AMA adopt a position of opposition and AMA formally adopted the position. Our position has been on AMA’s website since early this summer, and you can see it here. Article VIII of the Constitution contains language we live by in our industry: “It is the policy of the State to encourage…the development of its resources by making them available for maximum use consistent with the public interest…shall provide for the utilization, development, and conservation of all natural resources belonging to the State, including land and waters, for the maximum benefit of its people.” Article XIII, Section 4 of the Alaska Constitution gives unlimited power to a constitutional convention to amend or revise the constitution, which could result in an arbitrary and unpredictable rewrite to any part of the document. A rewrite of the areas that govern resource and economic development, multiple use, equal access, sustained yield, public domain, mineral and water rights, and access to navigable waters could be disastrous. There is nothing in the Constitution or law that governs the selection of Constitutional Convention delegates. Therefore, it is unknown who would hold the immense lawmaking authority that a Convention would bring. What is known is that this would no doubt bring outside
18
November 2022 I The Alaska Miner I www.alaskaminers.org
Made with FlippingBook. PDF to flipbook with ease