Constitutional Convention
Dear Editor: I can think of a number of issues we Alaskans and especially those of us living in Southeast should address and then deal with that would make this wonderful place we call home a better place to live.
A constitutional convention isn’t on my good things “to do” list and if you think about what we need in terms of civic discussion and action on pressing matters, it likely won’t make your list either.
Right now, there is abundant evidence floating around that supports the idea that we live in a highly charged political climate. Partisan politics, political back-stabbing and chaos are often the norm.
What we don’t have enough of any more is a lot of congenial discussion and a mature manner of conducting the business of our state government. Which is the leading reason why voting to convene a constitutional convention this fall would be a mistake. If we can’t conduct our state government in a sensible manner, what are the odds a constitutional convention will be anything other than an exercise in futility?
Alaska’s current constitution is remarkably good. The framers of Alaska’s Constitution learned from the attempts of every previous state other than Hawaii what worked and what was lacking in a state constitution. The efforts of the drafters of Alaska’s constitution reflect an approach and balance that works for our diverse state. For example, our constitution has unique provisions that preserve and protect individual privacy. Our state constitution is unique in requiring that our abundant renewable resources are managed according to sustained yield principles.
Overall, Alaska’s constitution is a remarkably sound document that protects our personal liberties and promotes personal, community and economic opportunity.
The question whether to conduct a constitutional convention comes before the voters every ten years. It’s on the ballot this November. All of us have a chance to weigh in on whether to convene a convention.
I’m voting no to avoid chaos. I’m voting no because convening a convention will open the door for narrow-minded special interest groups intent on altering our most important governmental document. I’m voting no because we already have a way to amend our state constitution, when necessary, without running the risk of changing the parts of the constitution that work.
I’m also voting no because I don’t want to waste millions of dollars of public funds on a convention that will be loaded with political partisans and folks with an ultra-narrow agenda. I’m voting no on the constitutional convention issue because of the uncertainty that will last for years while the delegates fiddle around with schemes and ideas pushed by special interests and organizations from Outside who want to tell us how to live.
Our state constitution requires a vote on whether to hold a convention every ten years. Just because the issue is on the ballot doesn’t make it a good idea. This is the wrong time to embark on an experiment to change the Alaska Constitution.
Vote NO on the call for a constitutional convention this November.
Joe Geldhof
Joe Geldhof is a lawyer in Juneau. He has argued a number of constitutional cases in the Alaska Supreme Court.
Blood Drive Canceled
Dear Editor: The Sitka fall blood drive is canceled.
Regretably, Blood Bank of Alaska has advised that their intended visit to Sitka on Oct. 21 and 22 has been canceled due to inadequate staffing to conduct mobile blood drives.
A request will be made for a spring blood drive in Sitka. Stay tuned.
Jean Frank, Robert Hattle,
Sitka Drive Coordinators
Correction
A Page 1 story in Tuesday’s Sentinel about the Sitka Sound Science Center’s National Weather Service nomination had a typographical error for the Tlingit word for weather, and project title. It should have read “Kutí” or “Khutí.”
The Sentinel regrets the error.
Correction
In Wednesday’s story about city funding of nonprofits, the zeroes got out of control on the Sentinel’s editing desk. The total requested by nonprofits is $71 thousand (not million), and the amount for distribution is $45 thousand (not million). The Sentinel regrets the errors.
