Amendments to the Alaska Constitution

Alaska is the second youngest state in the Union. The Alaska Constitution was ratified by Alaskan voters in 1956 but did not become operative until 1959 when Alaska was formally admitted to the Union. The document was drafted by 55 delegates gathered at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. As of 2024, the Alaska Constitution has been amended just 28 times.

Amendments to the Alaska Constitution may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of each house of the legislature, then ratified by voters by a simple majority. The legislature, with voter approval, may also call a constitutional convention, which is given “plenary power” to amend, revise, and substitute a new constitution for the existing constitution. Although voters cannot propose amendments using the initiative process, voters can use the initiative process to call a convention. 

Alaska is one of five states where a recurring ballot measure automatically gives voters a chance to call for a convention every ten years. These procedures, outlined in detail under Article XIII, Section 3, mandate that the lieutenant governor place a referendum question on the ballot at least once in ten years if a constitutional convention has not been held within the prior decade. If a majority of voters agree, the lieutenant governor is instructed to issue a call for the convention. To date, Alaska has not had a constitutional convention. In 1970, the proposition to call a convention picked up a narrow majority of 439 votes; however, the election results were invalidated after the Alaska Supreme Court held that the wording of the proposition introduced a “significant bias” toward an affirmative vote. A new vote was held at the next general election, where the referendum was defeated. The most recent convention referendum, held in 2022, was rejected by over 70% of voters.

Distribution Requirement for Initiatives

The initiative process in Alaska, which can be utilized to introduce and enact statutes but not constitutional amendments, was originally limited by two requirements at the petition stage: First, a petition had to be signed by voters from at least two-thirds of the house districts in the state. Only one signer from a district was needed to satisfy this requirement. Second, the total number of signatures had to equal ten percent of those who voted in the preceding general election. 

In 2004, the legislature referred an amendment to alter the requirements and make it harder to qualify a petition. Under the new system, sponsors must collect signatures from a minimum of 30 house districts (three more than required under the old provision) equivalent to seven percent of the votes cast in the preceding general election in that district. The total number of statewide signatures required did not change.

Proponents of the measure claimed it would make Alaska’s initiative process “more representative and more democratic.” (pg. 88). They argued that “communication, technology, and transportation have improved since [the] Constitution was written,” making it “much easier to send signature books around the state to gather support for an issue.” They also pointed to the experience of other western states, where in their view the “unchecked use of citizen initiatives” had frustrated the legislatures’ attempts to fulfill their duties. 

Opponents raised several concerns with the more burdensome requirements, calling the amendment “drastic and unnecessary.” (pg. 89). They disagreed with the notion that it would expand democracy, arguing it would “only serve to widen the gap between people and their government,” while making it easier for “well-funded groups that routinely hire signature gatherers” to get issues on the ballot. In the end, the measure was approved by a slim majority of voters (51%). 

Redistricting Board

For a number of years, Alaska was the only state in the county to give the reapportionment and redistricting powers solely to the governor. As the constitution was originally drafted, the governor set the boundaries of election districts and senate districts with the advice of a five-member board appointed by the governor. In an effort to provide some additional oversight, an amendment was proposed in 1998 to authorize the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, and the Chief Justice of the Alaska Supreme Court to each appoint one member to the board. Under this amendment, the board, not the governor, would also be responsible for devising and adopting new redistricting plans, although the governor retained authority to appoint two board members. 

Proponents of the measure argued that the existing procedure was flawed, pointing to the numerous instances of litigation over redistricting in the state’s relatively short history (redistricting plans proclaimed by the Governor following the 1970, 1980, and 1990 censuses each had aspects that were declared unconstitutional [pg. 115] by the Alaska Supreme Court). Opponents countered that the drafters of the Constitution were purposeful in their decision to insulate the legislative and judicial branches from the redistricting process, and to place sole authority in the Governor, “because the governor is Alaska’s only elected official without a direct interest in the shape of individual election districts.” While opponents conceded that the existing system “may not be perfect,” they believed the newly proposed system “would create more problems than it [would] solve[].” They argued that it would violate basic principles of separation of powers by “mingling decision-making between all three branches of government, thereby removing appropriate checks and balances.” It would also, in their view, infect the redistricting process with partisan bias by allowing legislators to be directly involved in choosing who determines the legislative lines they are subject to when seeking office. Finally, opponents alleged that by making the judiciary an active participant, the ability of that branch to act as a neutral arbitrator in evaluating the fairness of the reapportionment process would be jeopardized.

The amendment was ultimately approved by voters, though only by a slim majority (52%). In addition to the changes discussed above, the amendment also modernized the constitution’s redistricting provisions to remove language which had been rendered obsolete by decisions of the United States Supreme Court in a series of historic reapportionment cases (notably, Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims).

Renaming and Restructuring the Commission on Judicial Qualifications

In 1982, an amendment was passed changing the name of the Commission on Judicial Qualifications to the Commission on Judicial Conduct, a move intended to “lessen public confusion about the respective roles of this commission and the judicial council.” (pg. 102). The amendment also altered the composition of the commission; it now consists of three judges elected by their colleagues, three lawyers appointed by the Alaska Bar Association, and three laypersons appointed by the governor.

The commission regularly receives dozens of complaints ever year; however, only a small subset of these complaints are “jurisdictional complaints”—i.e., complaints the conduct or competency of a judge that the commission may address. In 2023, a single matter resulted in a formal hearing and recommendation of discipline to the Alaska Supreme Court.

For more information about the Commission on Judicial Conduct, see 1968

Permanent Fund

In 1976, Alaskan voters ratified an amendment to create the Alaska Permanent Fund. This followed the completion of the construction of the Trans Alaska Pipeline. In anticipation of the mineral royalties that would flow to the state, Alaskans were once again asked to consider whether some of the proceeds should be saved. Previously, in 1969, the state came into $900 million from the Prudhoe Bay Oil and Gas lease sale. Although there were discussions about saving some portion of that $900 million, ultimately, the proceeds from the sale were used to fund infrastructure projects and other social welfare programs.

The Permanent Fund was devised as a way to lead Alaska out of the boom-and-bust budgeting and development pattern brought on by the cycle of natural resource development. Voters ratified the amendment, which resulted in the creation of the Permanent Fund and a directive to set aside a portion of expected revenues from natural resources development, which could not be used for regular government spending and was to be invested to generate income. By 1980, the fund had generated enough income to pay out dividends to Alaska residents, although the first dividends weren’t paid out until 1982 following the conclusion of a legal challenge to how the dividends were to be calculated. In 1980, the state also abolished the income tax and replaced the necessary revenue for funding government with income from the Permanent Fund. 

Despite the intent of the amendment, Alaska has not been immune to the boom-and-bust cycle, and, in recent years, the Permanent Fund and its dividends have become tools in the state budget process. In 2016, Governor Bill Walker vetoed half the dividends to balance the state budget, and as oil revenue continues to fall, some have called for protections for the Permanent Fund dividends or a return of the state income tax.

General Election for Constitutional Amendments

The original Alaska Constitution specified that after approval by the legislature, amendment proposals should be placed on the ballot “for the next statewide election.” However, the first statewide election following the close of the legislative session was always a primary election, which traditionally has lower turnout rates than a general election. In 1974, an amendment was passed by over 70% of voters to replace the word “statewide” with “general.” The amendment has had an appreciable impact on vote totals for constitutional amendments. For example, both amendments to appear on the ballot in 1976 received over 110,000 votes, compared with only around 76,000 votes cast on the 1974 amendment. 

Prohibition of Sexual Discrimination

As a condition for Alaska’s admission into the Union, Alaska’s constitution was to make no distinction in civil and political rights on account of race or color. The equality provision also included a prohibition against discrimination on the basis of creed and national origin. However, the provision omitted an explicit protection from discrimination on the basis of sex. The issue of whether to provide explicit sex-based protection was “hotly debated” at the constitutional convention. Some delegates urged the necessity of spelling out sexual equality in the constitution, such as Delegate Helen Fischer, who remarked that, “‘Sex’ should definitely be in this proposal because there are still states in the Union where women are not allowed to serve on juries.” Others felt the explicit protection was unnecessary because members had already decided to use the neutral noun “person” throughout the constitution (in contrast to the traditional usage of “man” and “men”) was intentionally included to refer to both sexes. In the end, the proposal to include the word “sex” was defeated 37 to 15. Later, the delegates agreed to draft a provision clarifying that any personal pronouns used throughout the constitution “shall be construed as including either sex.”

Nonetheless, the issue lingered, and in 1972 the legislature put forth an amendment to add the word “sex” to the state constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Voters approved the measure by a four to one margin. As part of the implementing the broad protections of this section, the legislature has promulgated statutes that detail unlawful discriminatory practices in employment, public accommodations, the sale and rental of housing, financing, and governmental operations. A State Commission for Human Rights was also established, which is authorized to investigate formal complaints of discrimination and to order a remedy for violations of the laws.

Right of Privacy

Alaska is one of only a handful of states that explicitly provides for a right to privacy in their constitution. Added by amendment in 1972, the provision was a response to the rise of digital databases. In 1971, the FBI implemented a system called the Computerized Criminal History Program, which was designed to hold the full criminal histories for both federal offenders and state offenders from participating states. Around the same time, the Alaska Department of Public Safety began developing their own system, called the Alaska Justice Information System. Although these types of digital databases were in their infancy, the legislature “feared that such a system would result in privacy intrusions reminiscent of a ‘Big Brother’ government surveillance regime.” Legislators responded with this amendment, which over 85% of voters approved. 

As it has been interpreted by the Alaska Supreme Court, the provision gives broader protection to individual privacy than is available through the U.S. Constitution. It contains two separate protections: (1) the right to personal autonomy, which consists of the right to make personal choices relating to one’s own personal life, and (2) the right to shield personal information from public disclosure, which protects sensitive personal information which could cause anxiety, humiliation, or harassment if it was disclosed. 

Replacing Office of the Secretary of State with the Lieutenant Governor

Recognizing the need of a successor to the governorship in the case of death or disability, most states have a lieutenant governor position. In a small minority of states, either an elected secretary of state or the senate president is designated second-in-command. In Alaska, the successor position was originally held by the secretary of state. Established by Section 7, Article III of the constitution, the office’s presence in the constitution was subject to extensive debate among delegates at the constitutional convention. Delegates were divided over whether an office designated as the successor to the governor should be provided for in the constitution, and if so, whether this figure should be appointed or elected. Some delegates were of the opinion that a second elective office was entirely unnecessary, lobbying instead for a gubernatorial appointee to assume office, or to establish a line of succession through the presiding officers of the legislature. Others thought it important to have a ‘governor-in-training’ in the event the governor died or fell ill. Ultimately, the delegates settled on the inclusion of an elected secretary of state, who in addition to being second-in-command, would be involved in the administration of elections. In 1970, voters approved an amendment to rename the office from Secretary of State to Lieutenant Governor, “because the new title was thought to carry more prestige and was the title of comparable offices in other states.” The duties and responsibilities of the office were unaffected. 

Since its drafting, the section tasks the governor and legislature with prescribing the duties of the office. Although the delegates “envisioned a busy lieutenant governor whose work would be an integral part of the operation of the executive branch,” neither the governor nor the legislature has assigned much for that officeholder to do. Currently, the lieutenant governor has eleven statutory duties, including supervising the Division of Elections, appointing notaries public, serving as custodian of the state seal, and supervising the certification process for ballot initiatives and referenda.

Election of the Chief Justice

Alaskan voters also approved an amendment creating the current method by which the chief justice of the state’s high court is selected. The change was prompted by a “bitter conflict during the late 1960s between the court and the state bar association over the chief justice’s exercise of his administrative prerogatives.” Prior to this amendment, the constitution said nothing about the selection of the chief justice, and it was left to the governor to designate one of the members to serve as chief. Under the 1970 amendment, the decision is made amongst the justices, and there is a prohibition against serving consecutive terms as chief. Together these changes “prevent the accumulation of excessive power by one justice and…make[s] the chief justice accountable to the other members of the court.”

English-Literacy Requirement Abolished

At the constitutional convention, delegates opted for a requirement that voters be able to “read or speak” English. More restrictive proposals to require voters to “read and write” or “read, speak, and write” English were introduced but ultimately rejected. Around this period, literacy tests, “in some form, exist[ed] in some twenty states.”

In 1965, the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA) was passed. The law limited the population to whom literacy tests could be administered and prohibited the use of tests, such as literacy tests, that had the effect of denying the right to vote in a discriminatory manner violating the 14th and 15th Amendment. A subsequent expansion of the VRA in 1970 banned the use of literacy tests entirely. Alaska removed the English-literacy requirement from its constitution that same year by a narrow 51% majority.

Commission on Judicial Qualifications

Aside from impeachment, a complicated and cumbersome process that requires proof of “malfeasance or misfeasance,” the Alaska Constitution, as it was originally drafted, only provided for the removal of judicial officers on the grounds of incapacity. By the 1960s, it was becoming apparent that “the issues of judicial ethics and propriety were a greater threat to the integrity and public esteem of the judiciary than the infrequent problem of a mentally or physically impaired judge who refused to resign.” The judicial council called on the legislature to establish a separate commission charged with investigating instances of misconduct as well as incapacitation, leading to a proposed amendment to establish a Commission on Judicial Qualifications. The new section was approved, and a nine-member Commission on Judicial Qualifications was instituted, comprising one supreme court justice, three superior court judges, one district court judge, two attorneys, and two lay members. The commission makes recommendations to the supreme court regarding the disqualification, suspension, removal from office, retirement, and censure of judges.

For more information about the Commission on Judicial Qualifications, see 1982

Residency Requirement for Presidential Elections

At the time Alaska was admitted into the Union, every state had instituted some kind of durational residency requirement for voters, which prevented otherwise eligible citizens from casting their vote until the person had lived in the state, county, and/or election district for a specified amount of time. Alaska’s constitutional drafters followed suit, requiring voters to have lived in the state for at least one year and in the voter’s election district for at least 30 days.

However, as American society grew increasingly mobile in the post-WWII era, the cumulative impact of these prohibitions across the states began to take its toll. Across the country, in presidential elections, “it has been estimated that residency requirements disenfranchised five million citizens in 1954, between five and eight million in 1960, almost fifteen million in 1964, and another five to eight million in 1968.” At the same time, the U.S. Supreme Court was becoming more and more concerned with protecting the right to vote. Before long, state durational residency requirements “began to draw the public’s attention.” Several years before Congress would ultimately have its say on the matter, the Alaska legislature passed, and voters approved, an amendment which allowed the legislature to eliminate residency requirements for presidential elections. Then, in 1970, the federal Voting Rights Act was expanded to prohibit states from establishing their own durational residency requirements for presidential electors.