Frequently Asked Questions

 

1Aren’t our legislators influenced by special interests? How does the average person have a chance?
Our polling shows that the majority of Alaskans prefer to contact their legislator by email, phone, teleconference, or letter. Most areas in the state have teleconference sites set up for legislative hearings. Most people don’t feel a need for face-to-face contact. But if they do, there are plenty of opportunities for it. Legislators visit their home districts regularly during the session and don’t forget, they are only scheduled to spend 90 days in session – the rest of the time they are in their home districts. The other reason most people don’t feel the need for face to face contact is that many of us are represented very well by various affinity groups, employer groups, or other organizations that have elected or designated officials that meet with legislators on a regular basis to make their views known. You can call them special interests – but we are talking about teachers, truck drivers, senior citizens, and small business owners, for example – just regular people. This system actually serves an important and useful function for legislators - allowing them to communicate with far more constituents that they would otherwise have the time to do. This makes the Legislature more efficient – not beholden to special interests.
2I want see my legislator whenever I want. How can I, if they are hidden down there in Juneau.
Actually access to the Capital has never been better. Since 1994, when Alaskans last voted against moving the capital, the community of Juneau has significantly increased physical and electronic access to the capital. Most people don’t know this, but the community of Juneau has committed several million dollars in the last 10 years to fund various initiatives that improved access to the capital.
  • Sponsorship of Gavel-to-Gavel TV Coverage of the Legislature ($300,000 annually – CBJ is major sponsor – KTOO and corporate sponsors also help)
  • Internet streaming of the cable signal and all committee hearings (Cost approximately $150,000 to start (CBJ) and about $50,000 annually from KTOO)
  • Expanded and improved airport facilities and landing systems (Juneau and Alaska airlines teamed up to implement GPS approach and better airport)
  • And with Alaska Airlines – implementation of the popular constituent fare program during the Legislative Session (CBJ contribution $30,000 annually)
The Community of Juneau also donated several buildings providing tens of thousands of square feet of office space to the Legislature with no strings attached. They have also provided funding for land for expansion, if necessary, in the future. This demonstrates, at the very least, Juneau’s commitment to being a responsible capital city.
3Should the Legislature be moved?
Current proposals to move the Legislature disguise their real intent by talking about moving only the Legislature. But, this will eventually result in the entire capital being moved as well. There is no way to conduct government business efficiently when the Legislature is in one city and the other functions of government are in another. Don’t forget, what would move is an entire branch of state government – the Alaska State Legislature – that has 500 employees – and occupies hundreds of thousands of square feet of office space. This is a back door capital move since, inevitably, the rest of the capital will move with it. Move proponents say it will not cost much money. Yet a new building will need to be constructed and completely furnished and equipped. The operational costs will continue and be borne by the State - all while existing buildings in Juneau remain underutilized or abandoned. This idea is bad for voters and bad for Alaska.
4It can’t cost that much to move the Legislature – won’t it actually save money?
This will be expensive. The last time Alaskans rejected the cost of a capital move, it was $2.8 billion. And that was over 20 years ago. Even moving the Alaska State Legislature – which would be the first phase of a capital move – would be expensive. Even if the building is provided, the cost of operating and maintaining the building will be substantial. In addition, the costs of infrastructure (additional sewer, streets, power, etc) along with the costs of moving all the employees and their families will be borne by the State. It is also likely that the State will also pay for equipping and furnishing any new building. In the meantime – the Capitol building in Juneau and other legislative facilities – which are completely paid for – would be mostly vacant. Add all these costs to the economic devastation the move would cost Juneau and the SE region of the State and you realize it doesn’t make sense to spend money we don’t have on something we don’t need.
5Won’t we get better legislators to run for office if the Legislature is closer to the people?
Everyone should have a tremendous respect for anyone who is willing to run for elected office – whether it is the Legislature, the school board, local assembly, city council, or whatever it might be. It requires a tremendous dedication and commitment to serve. The reasons good people are willing to do it are sometimes very complex – but it isn’t related to where they serve. The truth is that the majority of capitals in this country are located away from major population centers and every two years, legislators are elected to serve in places like Salem, OR, Olympia, WA, Albany, NY, and Sacramento, CA. Somehow, those states don’t seem to think they need to move the legislature in order to get better legislators. Don't we have to question the depth of commitment of a potential candidate whose only reason for not running was the location of the capital?
6What is the true history of the capital related votes?
A Brief History of Capital-Move Measures
    The capital move debate has been a fixture of Alaska politics since statehood. When Alaska's first constitutional convention met in November 1955, the issue of whether the capital should remain in Juneau was one of many hot issues before the delegates. The convention itself was conceived as a tactical move in the battle for statehood, and the capital move question was a divisive issue most delegates wanted to avoid. Juneau had been the territorial capital since 1912 and those who wanted the capital to remain in Juneau hoped the final draft of the constitution would make it a permanent state capital. Those wishing to relocate the capital to Western Alaska wanted nothing in the document that would give Juneau any constitutional status as the state capital.


    The constitutional convention finished its work in February 1956. Article XV - "Schedule of Transitional Measures," Section 20 of Alaska's constitution states simply, "The capital of the state of Alaska shall be at Juneau." On January 3, 1959, Alaska officially became a state. Almost immediately an initiative petition was circulated to move the capital from Juneau. On August 9, 1960, Initiative Proposal No. 1 to relocate the capital within the Cook Inlet-Railbelt Area" came to a vote and was turned down by the voters (18,856 yes; 23,972 no).


    Undaunted, the capital movers, cheered on by the Anchorage Times and its owner-publisher Robert Atwood, secured enough signatures to place another initiative on the August 1962 Primary Election ballot. The initiative called for the relocation of the capital "...in Western Alaska, to a site not within 30 miles of Anchorage." A committee of state senators was to pick three sites to be chosen by a plurality vote of the people.


    This time, the opposition mounted a legal challenge arguing that, because Juneau was named as capital in Article XV, Section 20 of the state constitution, this provision could not be amended by initiative but would require an amendment to the constitution.


    In Starr v. Hagglund, 374 P.2d 316 (Alaska 1962), the Alaska Supreme Court decided that the initiative could go on the November 1962 General Election ballot on the grounds that the section of the constitution providing that Juneau was the capital was not intended to be a permanent part of the fundamental law of the state. That November, voters rejected the second proposal to move the capital (32,325 no; 26,542 yes)


    For the capital movers, still led by Atwood and the Anchorage Times, the third time was the charm. In August 1974, Initiative Proposal No. 1 to relocate the capital to a Western Alaska site at least 30 miles from Anchorage was approved by a vote of 46,659 to 35,325.


    The 1974 initiative provided for a capital site selection committee to pick three sites to be submitted to voters with the site receiving a plurality of votes to be the site of the new capital. In 1976, voters chose Willow. Then, in 1978, they approved an initiative requiring that all bondable costs of capital relocation be approved by voters prior to the expenditure of state money to relocate the capital. At the same time, however, voters rejected $966 million in general obligation bonds to build a new capital at Willow.


    The showdown came in 1982, when Alaskans turned down, by a vote of 102,083 to 91,049, a $2.8 billion bond issue to cover all bondable costs associated with moving the capital from Juneau to Willow. The 1982 vote was relatively close, considering the dollar magnitude of the proposition facing voters and the state was flush with oil revenues. Many capital movers believed that, despite the wilderness setting of the Willow site, the cost had been overstated.


    n August 1993, a group headed by State Representative Pat Carney of Wasilla, filed a petition for an initiative to move the capital to Wasilla. Over the previous four years, Carney had tried unsuccessfully to move bills through the Legislature to relocate the Legislature to his district.


    After receiving a $40,000 appropriation from the Wasilla City Council, the Carney group (“Move It”) hired the firm of Hellenthal & Associates of Anchorage to gather roughly 26,000 signatures to place the question on the 1994 General Election ballot. Carney's efforts reactivated the FRANK (Fiscally Responsible Alaskans Needing Knowledge) Committee headed by C.B. Bettisworth of Fairbanks.


    Before the deadline in January 1994, both the Carney Initiative and the FRANK Initiative had turned in more than the required signatures for ballot certification. Like the 1978 FRANK Initiative, which was repealed automatically when the 1982 capital move ballot measure failed, the new FRANK Initiative provided that no money can be spent to move the capital until a commission appointed by the Governor presents a bondable cost figure to voters and voters approve the costs of the move. Unlike the 1978 FRANK Initiative, the 1994 version also included the costs of a legislative move.


    In November 1994, voters approved the FRANK Initiative by 77% of the vote (159,781 yes, 46,665 no) and rejected the initiative to move the capital to Wasilla (116,277 no, 96,398 yes).


    On July 23, 2001, the Lieutenant Governor certified an initiative (Ballot Measure No. 2 on the November 5, 2002 election ballot) that required the Alaska Legislature to hold its sessions in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (or in Anchorage until facilities are available in the Mat-Su). The initiative would have repealed all provisions of the 1994 FRANK law dealing with moving the Legislature. The group sponsoring this initiative and registered with the Alaska Public Offices Commission to wage a campaign in support of Ballot Measure No. 2 was “Alaskans for Efficient Government.” The primary spokespersons in this group were Robert Monson, Mark Chryson, and Uwe Kalenka.


    On November 5, 2002, the initiative to move legislative sessions north was defeated 153,127 to 74,650 – a margin that exceeded 2 to 1.


    In 2017, a group named “Equal Access Alaska,” registered to put a Legislature-move measure on the 2020 general election ballot. The level of support for this effort is unknown but the group announced signature-gathering activities would take place over the next several years.


    The Alaska Committee anticipates that the cost issue and the right to know and vote on the costs shall be major determining factors on this question in the future, especially in light of declining oil production and revenue.

7How many times has a capital or legislative move been voted down?
6 times in public votes since 1960.