Dear Editor: Proposition 2 is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. On the surface, it claims to give voters extra information. In reality, the proposition’s design places new financial hurdles and time delays between citizens and our participation in democracy. Therefore, I am voting no.
Prop 2 would require that initiative sponsors pay for and deliver a recently dated independent economic impact study report (EISR) with their application for petition. That is even before any idea reaches the signature gathering stage. As proposed, EISRs must contain predicted 1- 5- and 10-year fiscal impacts.
Principal investigators would need a master’s degree or higher plus 5+ years of work experience in economics-related fields. Knowing what qualified consultants bill out for similar reports, I’d estimate the upfront EISR cost of many initiatives would exceed $10,000.
Corporations and the very wealthy can easily afford that kind of cost to influence policy. Most Sitkans cannot. This is especially true since citizen sponsors might already wish to budget for legal assistance to draft proposition language or for some advertising to reach out to voters.
In 2018, a citizen group used the initiative process to reinstitute a senior sales tax exemption. Had an EISR requirement been in place at that time, would voters have gotten to weigh in on that exemption? Today, if some residents wanted to petition to add a sales tax exemption on groceries, to put forth a solution to address child care shortages, or to change a regulation, could any of those ideas clear the hurdle of getting an EISR done before signature gathering?
So, the question on the ballot really is should those with the most money have the biggest – or only – megaphone? To that, I say no. I encourage you to vote no too.
Laurinda Marcello, Sitka
