capital focus

JUNEAU — Earlier this week, supporters of two mining-related ballot initiatives turned in roughly 60,000 signatures to the state’s Division of Elections. Backers of an initiative that would allow public financing of election campaigns filed their signatures the same day — Monday — and supports of two other initiatives filed theirs many months before.

In all, Alaska voters could have the chance to approve five new laws this fall, dealing with how the state permits mines, how campaigns are funded, how gambling is regulated, and what restrictions should be place on aerial predator control.

The number isn’t off the charts, but it is more than at any time in at least four election cycles, and it’s enough to give some state lawmakers mixed feelings about the initiative process.

House Speaker John Harris, R-Valdez, said he wasn’t concerned about the process in general, especially now that sponsors have to get signatures of support in three-quarters of the state’s election districts.

“What I am concerned about the initiative process — it never gets a public hearing,” he said Wednesday. “What you have is a big media campaign.”

Senate Minority Leader Gene Therriault, R-North Pole, expressed similar concerns.

Ballot initiatives are drafted by the initiative sponsors themselves rather than legislative lawyers, who generally write bills for lawmakers. And they don’t go through a committee process, a process Therriault said helps find errors in bills and ensure that the language in the bill does what the sponsor intends.

“I just wish there was more work back and forth,” he said.

State officials and initiative supporters disagree, for instance, what effect the first “Alaska Clean Water” initiative would have on mines that are already operating. The initiatives are largely aimed at stopping the development of a mine at Pebble, in Southwest Alaska.

Therriault said he was also concerned that well-funded individuals could use the initiative process for personal gain, referring to Robert B. Gillam, an Anchorage money manager who has helped fund the anti-Pebble effort.

Other lawmakers defended the process.

“Sometimes government is not receptive to good ideas,” said Rep. Les Gara, D-Anchorage. “The initiative process lets people take policy into their own hands.”

Danny Consenstein, who works for the Renewable Resources Coalition and helped gather signatures for the clean water initiatives, echoed the idea.

“We probably had the same frustration that the sponsors had — we didn’t have a lot of confidence that the Legislature or the administration were going to do anything,” he said, adding that legislative bills relating to mining and to the Pebble project weren’t moving.

Going to the initiative process is “sort of a last resort,” he said.

The Division of Elections has 60 days to verify the signatures provided this week by initiative backers.

Sponsors needed 23,831 signatures this year, representing 10 percent of the voter turnout at the last statewide election.

Consenstein said he was confident supporters had what they needed for both clean water initiatives.

Sponsors who filed signatures long ago for the predator control and gambling initiatives have already had their signatures verified, and those initiatives are scheduled to appear on the primary ballot in August.

The other three initiatives could end up on the primary or the general election ballot — assuming the signatures are verified — depending on how long the legislative session runs. State law requires a certain period of time between the end of the session and when the initiatives appear on the ballot.

State law also allows lawmakers to take measures off the ballot by passing legislation that is “substantially the same” as the initiative.

Therriault and Harris said they weren’t aware of any such legislative efforts at this point, but Senate President Lyda Green, R-Wasilla, said she assumed lawmakers would be interested in addressing some of the issues through legislation.

*Contact staff writer Stefan Milkowski at 388-6141.*