4 Special Coverage

Alaska’s house district map looks dramatically different than the last statewide election two years ago. And while the new districts may take some getting used to for candidates and voters, the state Division of Elections has been ready since the plan was first approved last spring.

State Elections Director Gail Fenumiai says the division began sending out new voter registration cards weeks ago.

“People have been calling regularly and checking in to see where their new polling place is located in their new district and precinct,” she says. “And then all voters received voter identification cards toward the early part of August that identified for them their new district and precinct number and the information that came along with that also said where their new polling place was located.”

Voters who still have questions can look up their polling place on the Division of Elections website. District numbers have changed: Juneau is now districts 31 and 32.

“If people find themselves going out of town, many of our airports in the state will have ballots on Election Day for people to vote,” Fenumiai says.

Fenumiai says primary turnout is often low, between 20 and 30 percent, but she’s hoping this year will be higher.

Polling places open Tuesday at 7 a.m. and close at 8 p.m. Fenumiai expects to begin releasing results on the state website at 9 p.m.

KTOO News will offer election results Tuesday on our website at ktoonews.org.

And beginning at 9 p.m. Tuesday, KTOO Radio also will carry live statewide updates at the top of every hour from the Alaska Public Radio Network.

Juneau’s legislative delegation would’ve been excused if they took it easy this summer.

Representatives Beth Kerttula and Cathy Munoz are running unopposed in both next week’s primary and November’s general election. And Senator Dennis Egan is the only legislator who doesn’t have to run for reelection this year, because his district was largely unchanged by the state’s once-a-decade redistricting process.

But Kerttula says she’s been busy volunteering for the Alaska Sea Party’s pro-Ballot Measure 2 campaign to restore the Alaska Coastal Management Program.

She also says she spent part of the interim meeting with residents of Petersburg and Skagway — two new communities incorporated into her district under the latest redistricting plan.

“I’m pretty excited about it,” Kerttula says. “It’s a challenge, but it’s a really welcome one. And it also brings the communities closer together as a Southeast unit. We southeastern legislators tend to work together well and we unite often, especially on budget.”

Both Kerttula and Munoz say they’ve been busy working on constituent issues as well. Kerrtula says Petersburg residents came to her with concerns after the state ferry Matanuska slammed into a fish processing dock there earlier this year.

Munoz says she’s trying to keep up to speed on construction activity, especially a proposed Auke Bay traffic project led by the state Department of Transportation.

“Especially when there was concern about the possibility of acquiring the DeHart’s building to put in a roundabout,” Munoz says. “We advocated with the Department of Transportation and worked with the community groups that were concerned about that to find another location for the roundabout.”

Munoz is a Republican and Kerttula the Democratic Minority Leader. But both say the Juneau delegation works together across party lines to do what’s best for the Capital City. They both think that’s one reason why they don’t face any challengers in this year’s elections.

The primary is on Tuesday.

Ballot Measure 2 on Tuesday’s primary election ballot is the most hotly contested initiative Alaska voters have faced in recent memory.

In the last five years, only the 2008 “Clean Water Initiative” — aimed at stopping development of the proposed Pebble Mine — had more spending for and against. As with that initiative, industry groups are lining up against Measure 2 — outspending proponents by more than seven to one.

If approved, Measure 2 would restore the Alaska Coastal Management Program — a federally funded state agency that operated smoothly, and with little fanfare, for more than 30 years before legislators and the Parnell administration failed to reach a deal to reauthorize it in 2011.

KTOO’s Casey Kelly has more.

If Measure 2 opponents are to be believed, coastal management is actually a good thing. The one-time head of the state’s coastal management review process Kurt Fredriksson is now the public face of the “Vote No on 2” campaign.

“Whether it’s called coastal management or some other form, clearly I believe Alaska needs a stronger voice in federal decision making,” Fredriksson told the Juneau Chamber of Commerce in June. “They are a dominant force in Alaska and we have to have a stronger voice in the decisions they make, whether it’s to protect or develop Alaska’s resources.”

But Fredriksson says Measure 2 would be a step backward for the state. The Alaska Coastal Management Program changed significantly during the Frank Murkowski administration. Some say it was gutted; others say reformed. Fredriksson, who also served as Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner under Murkowski, falls into the latter category.

“In the previous coastal management program, which existed for 35 years, there were lots of debates over the years, and those debates got resolved,” he says. “They got settled, and they got reflected in the law. We’re going back to a time when those debates are going to just kind of come up again.”

Fredriksson thinks that will lead to lawsuits, confusion and project delays.

But Ballot Measure 2 supporters say those are exactly the kind of things the initiative would help avoid. It restores the coastal management program’s coordinated review process, which streamlines the coastal development permitting activities of various local, state, and federal agencies.

The Alaska Sea Party sponsored Measure 2. At a recent news conference, Sea Party Co-chair Terzah Tippin Poe gave an example of the regulatory morass developers face without coastal management.

“Say it’s a dock. You’re going to have to take that project proposal, and the list of permits that you need for that project and you’re going to have to go to the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Environmental Conservation, Fish and Game, Corp of Engineers, and walk that from agency to agency,” Poe says.

That may not be a big deal to large corporations, but Poe says it hurts small businesses and individuals.

Measure 2 also would reestablish an Alaska Coastal Policy Board — part of the program scrapped by Murkowski. The board would be comprised of four state commissioners and nine public members to be nominated by local communities and appointed by the governor.

The board would review district management plans developed by coastal communities to ensure they comply with state regulations. Poe says it would not have veto power over projects as claimed by some opponents of the initiative.

“One of the big things that this coastal management program accomplishes, is that you actually identify, a project proponent can identify issues early in the process,” she says. “Then go and talk with communities and get their input on how to work towards a successful development project.”

The reestablishment of a policy board ultimately doomed efforts by state lawmakers to reauthorize the coastal management program during the past two legislative sessions.

Some Measure 2 opponents think the legislature should try again, saying the issue is too complicated to be decided by voters.

“Something as complex as this should really be worked on at the legislative process, so that we can develop something that everybody will agree to,” says Mike Satre, executive director of the Council of Alaska Producers — a trade group representing large scale mines and mining projects in the state.

“But I get very scared about something supporters admit has problems, and simply want it to pass so they can fix it later,” Satre says.

Measure 2 supporters concede it might not be perfect for everyone, and they admit it leans toward giving communities more of a voice in coastal management.

Charlotte Brower is mayor of the North Slope Borough — the Sea Party’s top financial backer. With exploratory drilling in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas imminent, Brower says the state can’t afford to delay restarting the program. And she insists it’s not about stopping development.

“We are not in a position to stop offshore development or inshore development. It’s there,” Brower says. “We just need to make sure that we have a seat on the table and talk about this issue that is going to impact our residents. It’s coming.”

Alaska is the only coastal state without a federally approved coastal management program. The 1972 Coastal Zone Management Act allows states that opt for a program to get some federal funding.

Industry opponents of the ballot measure — including the big three oil producers and several mining companies in Alaska — have donated more than $1.5-million to the “Vote No on 2” campaign.

The Alaska Sea Party has raised just over $204,000, mostly from coastal communities and individuals.

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.