Two measures on the Nov. 7 ballot were written to relieve the pain of two chronic state headaches, but whether or not they'd be the right prescription is in debate.
Ballot Measure 1 would reduce the length of the regular legislative session from 121 days to 90 days. Ballot Measure 2 would tax oil companies holding natural gas leases on Alaska's North Slope by $1 billion each year a gasline is not built.
Over the last decade there have been numerous attempts to shorten the length of the session, said Heath Hilyard, a member of Rep. Tom Anderson's staff.
Proponents of this idea cite the inefficiency of the Legislature in its first 30 days and the potential to reduce operating expenses as the main benefits to this plan, he said.
In his opinion published in support of the measure, Sen. Tom Wagoner says the Legislature would still have the power to call itself into special session to address issues needing further resolution, as will the governor.
Wagoner also points out that 27 states have legislative session lengths shorter than Alaska's.
Flipping Wagoner's argument, Rep. Beth Kerttula said because the Legislature has spent so much time in special sessions the last few years, the measure will probably not be able to shorten the actual time spent in Juneau.
"With the complex issues Alaska has, you can't finish in 90 days," Kerttula said.
She also said the governor and lobbyists would benefit from the measure because they have the resources to be in Juneau for the whole session.
The measure would make it harder for the average citizen to get involved, she added.
UAF students were divided on the measure.
"Reducing the session length is a good idea," said Paul McDonald, 20. "They spend too much time arguing around there. No one should be in Juneau that long. Once it's May, the cruise ship people are starting to arrive in Juneau and the legislators need to get out."
Others disagreed.
"The Legislature barely gets done now what they need to get done," said UAF student Leslie Drumhiller, 47. "To put in a special session what needs to happen regularly seems ridiculous."
Ballot Measure 2 relates to the topic of debate at one of this year's special sessions, Alaska's natural gas pipeline.
"The measure will penalize owners of gas -- Exxon, Mobile, Conoco Phillips, etc. -- if they don't produce gas and put it into the market," said Jerry McBeath, a political science professor at UAF.
Unlike in other states, subsurface mineral rights belong to the state, not the individual. The state then leases those rights to companies who agree to produce the oil.
According to Kerttula, the gas reserves tax would be a tax on gas that isn't being produced. When the gas was developed, companies would get some of the money back, possibly in the form of a tax credit.
"It is crucial to us, to Alaska, that to get our budget we develop the gas," said Kerttula.
Kerttula said the reserves tax would be a tool for negotiating with developers. The state needs to be strong in negotiations, she said.
As drafted, the text of the measure would also provide for gas companies to give up their rights to the land if they didn't want to pay the tax or produce gas.
However, the measure has opponents, including all three gubernatorial candidates and the major oil companies.
"People think the measure will move the pipeline along, but I don't think you can force oil companies to produce gas any faster than they want," McBeath said.
In an opinion published in opposition to the measure, a cohort of state figures, including former Gov. Bill Sheffield, argue the measure would slow the development of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline and discourage companies from developing Alaskan gas at all.
"I just know that Ballot Measure 2 I'm going against," said UAF student Jace Fagan, 18. "I heard it's going to hurt everybody pretty bad."
Not all UAF students agreed with Fagan.
