November 8, 2005

• Alaska’s Constitution

  Fifty years ago today, in 1955, fifty-five delegates met in Fairbanks
  to frame a constitution for a state that did not yet exist.  The
  building where they held their sessions was the newly-built Student
  Union at the University of Alaska, but now that building is known as
  Constitution Hall.  The document they created has been called the
  best constitution in the world (and not just called that by
  Alaskans).  It has also been called a sales pitch.  Both of
  those labels fit.

  The Territories of Alaska and Hawaii had been petitioning Congress for
  statehood for years, but there had not been much action toward getting
  a bill through.  The biggest obstacle to statehood for the 49th
  and 50th states was racism.  Southern politicians had just enough
  votes to ensure their ability to filibuster and delay passage of civil
  rights legislation and they knew that new senators and congressmen from
  Alaska and Hawaii would turn the tide against them.  House Speaker
  Sam Rayburn was Congress’s most influential and outspoken opponent of
  statehood for AK and HI.

  Dwight Eisenhower was president.  He opposed statehood for Alaska
  for military reasons.  Federal control of this strategically
  important territory was greater then than it would be after
  statehood.  The plan that Ike favored was to break up the
  territory and consider statehood only for the areas of Southeast and
  South Central Alaska that include Seward, Juneau, Valdez and Anchorage,
  while leaving the larger portion of the land as a U.S. territory. 
  Proponents of statehood in Fairbanks, Nome, and a number of smaller
  communities up north, didn’t like that idea.  [I wish you could
  see the crooked ironic grin on my face as I typed that understatement.]

  The rationale for holding the Constitutional Convention was to
  demonstrate the seriousness and “normalcy” of Alaskans, and their
  worthiness for statehood.  This is how the Constitution gained
  that reputation as a sales document.  Alaskans had an image of
  non-conforming rugged individualism and general “kookiness,” to use a
  term in currency in 1955.  The delegates worked hard to
  demonstrate their responsibility and rationality.  Once the
  constitution was complete, no one could deny that the wannabe state was
  capable and worthy of self-governance.

  The Territory of Alaska was divided into five legislative
  districts.  The Territorial Legislature was made up of delegates
  who were elected at large in each of those districts.  The
  Southern district included the Panhandle of Southeast, the Aleutian
  Islands, and Southcentral where Anchorage is located.  All of its
  legislators came from Anchorage, where the majority of the district’s
  population was concentrated.  The Territorial Legislature made
  sure that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention would be
  selected  more equitably by dividing the state into many smaller
  local districts.

  The Territorial Legislature appropriated $350,000 for the
  Constitutional Convention.  Delegates were paid $15.00 a day
  salary and
  $20.00 per diem for expenses.  Those delegates arrived in
  Fairbanks for the convention by many means of transportation including
  aircraft and dog sled.  The Parks Highway, which now links
  Fairbanks with the populous parts of the state farther south and
  defines the “Railbelt” where most of us Alaskans live, wasn’t here
  then.  The delegate from Anchorage, Vic Fischer, drove a gravel
  road to Glenallen and then another gravel road, the Richardson Highway,
  to Fairbanks, at top speed of 35 MPH.

  I listened to Vic Fischer, and the delegate from the
  Yukon-Kuskokwim-Tanana region, Jack Coghill, on our local public radio
  station today, talking about the convention.  I’m very happy for
  the opportunity to hear and learn from them.  Not many of the
  delegates are still alive.  I skimmed a roster of the delegates,
  and saw that five out of the fifty-five names were identifiably
  feminine.  Since several were identified only by their initials,
  there may have been more than five women at the convention.  I’m
  quite certain that their presence and their input helped make Alaska’s
  State Constitution the exemplary document it is.

  The Territorial Legislature had instructed the delegates not to write
  law.  Their purpose was to frame a foundation upon which
  legislation could be built.  They were also determined not to let
  partisan politics influence the constitution.  Delegate William A.
  “Bill” Egan, who was later elected as first governor of the new state,
  was elected President of the Constitutional Convention.  Vic
  Fischer and Jack Coghill credited Bill Egan with keeping politics out
  of it.

  When it was formulated, two of the concepts embodied in our
  constitution were notable for their novelty:  the right to privacy
  (which has spawned endless debates and confusion over our supposed
  right to privately consume controlled substances, in conflict with
  Federal law), and prisoners’ rights.  Our state constitution
  mandates that correctional facilities and the criminal justice system
  focus on reformation of the offender and protection of society, not on
  punishment.   We have a correctional system, not a penal
  system.

   Another provision prohibits “dedicated revenues.”  No tax
  can be earmarked for a specific purpose.  The delegates studied
  other states’ experiences and decided that we didn’t want to make
  mistakes such as those in places where excess dedicated highway
  maintenance revenues were channeled into private pockets while the
  state’s school system fell apart.  Our state coffers (with the
  exception of the Alaska Permanent Fund whose dividends we all enjoy
  equally) are one big pocket, the General Fund.

  Armed with the sales pitch of the Constitution, Alaska’s Territorial
  Delegate to Congress, Edward Lewis “Bob” Bartlett sold a few key
  politicians including Senator Lyndon B. Johnson and House Speaker Sam
  Rayburn on backing statehood for Alaska.  Hawaii wasn’t far behind.

  Exemplary as the document is, it wasn’t perfect.  It has been
  amended.  One amendment recognizes the rights of victims of crime
  and their surviving families.  Another amendment seems to many
  people, including myself, to have introduced an obvious flaw into the
  document.  Wouldn’t you consider an unconstitutional amendment to
  the constitution, a “flaw”? 

  Some of us see sections 2, 3, and 22 of Article I:

  SECTION 3. CIVIL RIGHTS. No person is to be denied the enjoyment
  of any civil or political right because of race, color, creed,
  sex, or national origin. The legislature shall implement this
  section.

  SECTION 4. FREEDOM OF RELIGION. No law shall be made respecting
  an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
  thereof.

  SECTION 22. RIGHT OF PRIVACY. The right of the people to privacy
  is recognized and shall not be infringed. The legislature shall
  implement this section.

  as conflicting with section 25:

  SECTION 25. MARRIAGE To be valid or recognized in this State,
  a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman.

  Oh, well, bullshit just seems to creep in everywhere eventually.
  

  • 9:32 pm
  • 5 Comments