Dear Editor: Recent letters to the editor gave strong reasons for voting “No” on Proposition 2, the initiative that would effectively block any future citizen initiatives in Sitka.
Here is yet another reason to vote No.
The Constitutional Convention’s delegates put much thought and effort (in 1955 & 1956) into crafting citizens’ powers in the Alaska Constitution for making statewide law through initiatives. The Constitution includes some restrictions on those powers.
Article X §11 gives Home Rule municipalities, like Sitka, “legislative powers not prohibited by law.” But under Article XI §7 “the initiative shall not be used to... enact local or special legislation.”
Later, in statutes the Legislature extended the statewide citizen initiative powers for use at the municipal level, but with four additional restrictions. Those limitations are in AS 29.26.110(a), which determines whether or not a municipal clerk may authorize the signature phase for an initiative. This is statewide legislation which regulates initiatives in all municipalities.
Proposition 2 attempts to add a fifth restriction, solely for Sitka through a local ordinance. It would bar the clerk from allowing signature-gathering for an initiative petition unless a very expensive, obsessively detailed “Economic Impact Study Report” is filed with the application. This is how Proposition 2 attempts to end initiatives of any kind in Sitka.
Proposition 2 is prohibited both by the Constitution in XI §7 as “local or special legislation” and by the Legislature’s preemption by regulating, statewide, the rights and restrictions for municipal-level initiatives with just its four restrictions.
Further, certification of Proposition 2 is additionally barred by the state statute’s fourth restriction, that an ordinance-by-initiative must “be enforceable as a matter of law.” Proposition 2 is not enforceable because it is barred by the Constitution and by the legislative preemption.
So, the initiative application should have been denied. How, then, did Prop 2 get on the ballot?
JDO Law firm reviewed the initiative for the City, in the municipal attorney’s absence. The review quotes the Constitution’s entire Art. XI §7, but neglected to discuss what here is its key restriction: “shall not be used to ... enact local or special legislation.”
Proposition 2 will effectively block any future initiatives in Sitka, because of the high expense of either producing its required, obsessively detailed economic study or of challenging the ordinance in court.
We must defend our constitutional right, as citizens, to petition our local government by initiative.
Solution: JUST VOTE NO.
Larry Edwards, Sitka
