Alaska Elections

Yesterday, state attorneys filed a challenge to the federal Voting Rights Act in district court in Washington, DC.

The suit stems from legal action in June, when some Alaska Native groups sued the state for going forward with election plans before the federal government had given the go-ahead to Alaska’s 2012 redistricting plan.

Assistant state Attorney General Margaret Payton-Walsh says Alaska is only challenging Section Five of the Voting Rights Act.

“We were very concerned that we were not going to be able to hold the primary on time. And because we don’t have a permanent redistricting plan, and the board is going to have to try again, we wanted to avoid a repetition of that whole experience in 2014,” Payton-Walsh said. “We don’t believe the preclearance requirement of Section Five is necessary in Alaska. We don’t believe it’s constitutionally justified. We think that it creates a specific set of problems that led to that sort of crisis moment in June when we were afraid we weren’t going to be able send out advance absentee ballots.”

The June lawsuit by the Native groups became moot when the federal Department of Justice approved Alaska’s redistricting plan. But Payton-Walsh says the state is taking the arguments it planned to make in that case to court to exempt Alaska from the restrictions of Section Five.

“That section requires that the states in the jurisdictions that are covered by — it’s not every state in the union — but the states that are covered have to go to the federal government in Washington, DC every time they want to make any change in their election laws or procedures. And that could be anything from our new redistricting plan down to moving a polling station across the street,” Payton-Walsh said.

The suit also challenges the formula that requires certain states to comply with Section Five. Only eleven states must meet full Section Five requirements, though the Voting Rights Act applies to all states.

The groups sparring over a ballot measure to restore the Alaska Coastal Management Program traded barbs today (Friday), accusing each other of campaign disclosure violations.

KTOO’s Casey Kelly has more.

The Alaska Sea Party filed a complaint with the Alaska Public Offices Commission, arguing Vote No on 2’s television and online video ads violate state campaign disclosure rules.

The law requires groups to cite on screen in writing, and through an audible disclaimer, their top three financial backers.

At the time the ads were produced No on 2’s top three contributors were the Alaska Miners Association, Shell Oil Company, and the Alaska Oil and Gas Association. Since then, ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips have displaced Shell and AOGA on the group’s website, but not in the ads.

“The ads should stop,” says Sea Party Policy Director Lisa Weissler. The group is sponsoring Ballot Measure 2.

“It’s a very clear violation of the law, and so it should stop or they should do it right. And they should have penalties assessed,” says Weissler.

No on 2 Spokesman Willis Lyford argues the group did nothing wrong. But he says the ads have now been updated to include Exxon and Conoco in the top three, as well as a verbal disclaimer.

“On the advice of our lawyer we’ve already changed the ads up. The new advertising will have the audio portion that they’re suggesting is needed,” Lyford says. “Our view on that is, well, you’re better to have belt and suspenders. We want to make that change and then let the process play out and see what actually is the case.”

Lyford calls the Sea Party hypocrites. He notes the group’s website features YouTube videos, and no audio disclaimer about its top contributors. He says the rules should apply to all campaign videos.

“Doesn’t matter whether it’s paid advertising or not,” he says. “It is advertising, and if in fact their submission is correct, then they’re guilty of the same violation.”

The Sea Party touts itself as a grassroots organization. Its top three contributors are the North Slope Borough, the Bristol Bay Native Corporation, and the Alaska Conference of Mayors.

Weissler says the group is pulling the YouTube videos from its website until they can be updated to include a disclaimer. But she says there’s a difference between videos posted online at no cost, and expensive television commercials.

“This is the reason for the law is that there’s money that comes in from outside, unlimited donations can come in from outside and people need to know whose voices are being represented in these sorts of ads,” says Weissler.

State Senator Hollis French (D-Anchorage) sponsored the 2010 state law that required groups to disclose their top contributors. He says the audio disclosure should apply to all campaign videos, but it’s especially important for television ads.

“It’s crucial that people who are perceiving these commercials, whether you’re watching a TV ad or even listening to it in the background, it’s crucial that those people know who has donated to the entity behind that ad,” French says.

Alaska Public Offices Commission Executive Director Paul Dauphinais says the commission will take up the Sea Party’s complaint on Monday.

The two sides also have filed complaints challenging the other’s name, citing a state law requiring a group’s moniker reflect an issue or goal, and not simply express opposition or support of a particular measure. Dauphinais says those complaints won’t be heard until next month.

Measure 2 on the August 28th primary ballot would reestablish the Alaska Coastal Management Program. The federal Coastal Zone Management Act allows states that adopt an approved coastal management program to have greater input into development decisions along their coastlines. It also streamlines the regulatory process of various local, state, and federal agencies.

Alaska had a program for more than 30 years. But in 2011, the legislature and Parnell administration failed to reach a deal to reauthorize it.

The group behind a ballot measure to restore Alaska’s Coastal Management Program says initiative opponents are violating state campaign disclosure law.

The Alaska Sea Party points to the “Vote No on 2” campaign’s TV ads, which feature outdated information about the group’s top three contributors, and don’t audibly name those donors as required by the law.

At the time the ads were produced No on 2’s top three financial backers were the Alaska Miners Association, Shell Oil Company, and the Alaska Oil and Gas Association. Since then, ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips have displaced Shell and AOGA on the group’s website, but not in the ads.

Sea Party Policy Director Lisa Weissler want the ads changed or taken off the air.

“The ads should stop. It’s a very clear violation of the law, and so it should stop or they should do it right. And they should have penalties assessed,” Weissler says.

She says the Sea Party filed a complaint about the ads with the Alaska Public Offices Commission Friday.

It’s the second APOC complaint the Sea Party has filed against the anti-Measure 2 group. In July, the Sea Party took issue with the “Vote No on 2” moniker, saying it violates a state requirement that a group’s name reflect an issue or the goal, and not simply express opposition or support of a particular measure.

The Sea Party touts itself as a grassroots organization. Its top three contributors are the North Slope Borough, Bristol Bay Native Corporation, and the Alaska Conference of Mayors.

No on 2 spokesman Willis Lyford could not be reached for immediate comment.

The federal Coastal Zone Management Act allows states that adopt an approved coastal management program to have greater input into development decisions along their coastlines. It also streamlines the regulatory process of various local, state, and federal agencies.

Alaska had a program for more than 30 years. But the legislature and Parnell administration failed to reach a deal to reauthorize it in 2011.

Measure 2 will be on the August 28th primary ballot.

The Juneau Assembly is sending voters two capital project funding packages at the October 2nd municipal election.

Assembly members last night (Monday) approved the measures without making any changes.

The first is a five year extension of the city’s temporary 1-percent sales tax — known as the project tax — which Juneau voters have approved for nearly 30 years. The second is a $25 million bond proposition to pay for additional projects beyond what would be covered by sales tax alone.

Though they’ll appear on the ballot as separate propositions, the measures are designed to be considered as one. That’s because $10 million from the sales tax extension would be used to pay down debt on the bonds, avoiding the need to raise property taxes.

Public comment was decidedly in favor of the ballot measures. North Douglas resident SueAnn Randall highlighted her support for the Juneau Arts and Culture Center, which would get about a million dollars from the sales tax extension for planning and design of a new performing arts space.

“The JACC expansion proposal offers an incredible opportunity for providing the Capital City of Alaska with a performing arts venue worthy of the talent that comes to our town, as well as supporting the infrastructure of the local and creative economy,” Randall said.

Fritz Cove resident Tom Williams was the only person to speak against either measure. He blasted the bond proposition, saying the Assembly was not living within the city’s means. But he had a more measured response to the sales tax proposal, objecting only to the inclusion of money for the Sealaska Heritage Institute’s Walter Soboleff Center.

“The project may be a great project, but for the city to designate the sales tax, public money, towards a private entity, I think is not a good way to go,” Williams said.

He pointed to a recent survey of about a third of Juneau Chamber of Commerce members, where 54 percent of those who answered thought there hadn’t been enough public input.

In his public testimony, Sealaska Heritage Chief of Operations Lee Kadinger talked about the benefits of the project, including preservation of local Native culture and about 30 permanent jobs. Kadinger also dismissed the chamber survey.

“We believe it does not represent the majority view of its membership as indicated by its own report,” Kadinger said. “We would encourage the Assembly to continue its deliberative process to bring the tax initiative to a vote before Juneau residents in October.”

And that’s exactly what happened. Assemblyman Randy Wanamaker was the only member to vote against sending the measures to voters. He also made a failed bid to send the funding packages back to the Finance Committee for further review.

The slate of candidates for Juneau’s municipal election is now set.

On Monday — the last day for candidates to file for office — Cheryl Jebe joined the race for mayor, ensuring voters will have a choice on October 2nd.

Jebe will face former Deputy Mayor Merrill Sanford, who previously was the only candidate in the race.

A Juneau resident since 1975, Jebe says she wants to see continued economic growth in the Capital City, and ensure local government provides important services such as public safety and education.

While this is her first run for elected office, Jebe served on the city’s Docks and Harbors Board for six years, from 2005 through 2011. She also was a member of the Juneau Alcoholism Board, which established the Rainforest Recovery Center. And she’s been active in both the local and statewide League of Women Voters.

“I have the skills and abilities to serve as mayor. I have an extreme interest and energy and time to work for Juneau’s continued success,” she says.

Jebe also says she’s looking forward to debating issues with Sanford, who up until a year ago was serving three consecutive terms on the assembly for a total of nine years in office.

“One of my questions will be, ‘Has the past ten years met your expectations, and would a fresh set of eyes add clarity and improvement?'”

Jebe is a retired state employee, and also worked for the Alaska Public Employees Association. She’s also volunteered for numerous local nonprofits, including the Red Cross, the Glory Hole, AWARE, and the Juneau Convention and Visitors Bureau.

School Board

Joining Jebe in declaring for office on the final day of the filing period were school board candidates Phyllis Carlson and Will Muldoon.

Carlson is a three-term incumbent, who has served nine years on the board. She currently works for the state Department of Education as coordinator for the Parents as Teachers program. She previously was the department’s Rural Education director, and also worked for the Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska.

Muldoon is a contractor, working on information technology and website projects. He graduated from Juneau Douglas High School in 2003, and ran for school board as an 18-year-old. Now 28, he says he’s ready to try again. In the interest of full disclosure, Muldoon is a member of KTOO’s board of directors.

Carlson and Muldoon join incumbent Andi Story, former school board member Destiny Sargeant, and first-time candidate Michelle Johnston in a five way race for three open seats on the board.

Juneau Assembly

Two candidates — Loren Jones and Paul Nowlin — will square off for the Assembly District 1 seat currently held by Deputy Mayor David Stone, who can’t run again due to term limits.

The only candidate without a challenger on this year’s municipal election ballot will be Jerry Nankervis. The retired Juneau Police Captain is seeking the Assembly District 2 seat currently held by Ruth Danner, who is stepping down after one term.

The municipal election is October 2nd.

Opponents of measure 2 on this month’s Alaska primary ballot are using their sizable financial advantage to flood the airwaves.

Thanks largely to donations from resource development groups and companies, the “Vote No on 2” campaign is running TV and radio commercials in addition to print advertising, encouraging voters to say no to the measure restoring Alaska’s Coastal Management Program.

Backers of the citizen’s initiative say they’re not trying to compete with the full on media blitz, but believe their support in coastal communities will help them prevail.

KTOO’s Casey Kelly has more.

If you’re watching the Olympics on TV this week, chances are you’ve seen the ads urging you to vote no on Ballot Measure 2.

The “Vote No on 2” campaign paid for the TV spots with some of the nearly $719,000 in cash it raised since forming just two months ago.

Mike Satre is executive director of the Council of Alaska Producers — a trade group representing large-scale mines and mining projects in the state. It was one of the first groups to give money to “No on 2,” cutting a $25,000 check in June. Satre says the council’s membership supported the state’s previous coastal management program, but is concerned about the version outlined in Measure 2.

“We had some long conversations about where we sat on this program and ultimately decided that because of the uncertainty that this initiative would bring out, the new bureaucracy it would bring about that we simply couldn’t support this initiative,” Satre says.

Other resource development companies and organizations have followed suit. That includes a $150,000 donation from Shell Oil; $120,000 from the Alaska Miners Association; and $75,000 dollars from Hecla Greens Creek Mining Company — Juneau’s largest private employer.

Satre, who’s also donated more than $5,000 of his own staff time as an in-kind contribution, says obviously the money will help to get the message out on multiple platforms between now and Election Day on August 28th.

“We find that most people around the state don’t know what this initiative is, and so it’s very, very important that we spend our time and money on educating voters,” he says.

In contrast to the anti-Measure 2 group, initiative sponsors the Alaska Sea Party raised just under $64,000 during the last reporting period. Juneau Mayor and Sea Party Chairman Bruce Botelho says the group will not be airing TV ads during the Olympics, or at all for that matter.

“Obviously it’s a concern, because we will not be able to match the message that people will be exposed to, perhaps saturated with,” Botelho says.

He says the Sea Party plans to respond with a “grassroots” campaign, including door-to-door canvassing, phone calls, and speeches to civic groups.

In response to industry claims that Measure 2 is too complex and would add another layer of bureaucracy, he says the initiative is really just a framework to set up a coastal management program like the one the state had for more than 30 years.

Botelho says that includes the fundamental feature of coastal management — one-stop permit review for coastal projects by a single state agency. He argues that’s pro-development, especially when the builder is a small company or an individual.

“That person or company has an opportunity to have all the regulatory agencies at the table at the same time, walking through issues that may arise,” he says. “And to make sure that we don’t get in the cycle that is actually starting to occur now, which is if the permit has to be modified with one agency, you basically have to run the gauntlet yet again.”

In addition, coastal management traditionally gives local communities a greater voice in development decisions happening in their backyards. For that reason, Botelho thinks the Sea Party will have an advantage when it comes to support in coastal areas.

“In the rural, coastal communities, there has been a very strong statement of support for coastal management and for the initiative,” he says. “They see the importance of having a viable coastal management program and having a community voice.”

Indeed, the Sea Party’s largest contributor is the North Slope Borough, which has given more than $40,000 since late last year. Other top donors include the Bristol Bay Borough, Bristol Bay Native Corporation, and Anchorage businessman Bob Gillam — a major opponent of the proposed Pebble Mine.

Satre says “Vote No on 2” supporters are not opposed to local input when it comes to development.

“I can see why coastal communities want to get a program back on the table,” he says.

But he still thinks the measure goes too far.

The Alaska Coastal Management Program shut down in 2011 after the multiple failed attempts by the legislature to reauthorize it.

If voters okay the initiative, it would likely take about two years to get federal approval for a new program. Currently, Alaska is the only coastal state without an authorized coastal management program.