Elections in Alaska
Federal government Presidential elections 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 Presidential primaries and caucuses Democratic 2008 2016 2020 Republican 2008 2012 2016 2024 U.S. Senate elections 1958 1960 1962 1966 1968 1970 sp 1972 1974 1978 1980 1984 1986 1990 1992 1996 1998 2002 2004 2008 2010 2014 2016 2020 2022 2026 2028 U.S. House of Representatives elections 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1973 sp 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 sp 2022 2024
State government Statewide elections 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 Gubernatorial elections 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 Senate elections 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 House of Representatives elections 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 Ballot measures 1990 2 1998 2 2008 ACWI 2014 2 2020 2
Anchorage Mayoral elections 1981 1984 1987 1990 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 Propositions 2018 (1)

The Alaska Clean Water Initiative (ACWI) of 2008 was a citizens-initiative ballot measure. In Alaska, such measures become state law, if a majority of voters vote in favor of the measure. The ACWI contained regulatory language limiting the release and distribution of "sulfide mining" effluents and products into the environment. In August 2008, Ballot Measure 4, the "Alaska Clean Water Initiative," was voted down (approximately 57% against and 43% in favor) in the statewide primary election.

Background

The ACWI was created by opponents of possible future development at Pebble mine: the same political forces that led to the Bill to create Jay Hammond State Game Refuge and the Bill for Protection of Salmon Spawning Water. Ballot Measure 4 was written to apply statewide; as the State constitution demands. The measure would have effectively outlawed large-scale metal mining in the Bristol Bay drainage. Supporters of the Measure argued strongly that the Measure would not affect any other mining operation in Alaska. Opponents of the Measure argued that it would have serious, and unnecessary, adverse effects on the mining industry statewide.

Both opponents and proponents of Ballot Measure 4 collectively spent over $10 million on advertising and other efforts. The largest portion of that was provided by the mineral industry to oppose the Ballot Measure; the largest publicly reported personal expenditure, over $800,000, was by Bob Gillam, an investment professional and owner of a private lodge a few dozen miles from the Pebble site, who helps lead opposition to Pebble.^[1]

Procedure

In Alaska, an initiative is, "the procedure by which the people instead of the legislature introduce and enact a law. A specified number of voters propose the law they wish to be placed on a ballot to have it voted up or down by their fellow Alaskans. By law, an initiative can not be narrowly targeted, it must have statewide effect. [Ref. AS 15.45.010-245]."^[2]

Legal interpretations

Ballot Measure 4 (the Act), if it had passed into law, would have prohibited the State of Alaska from issuing permits to any metallic mining operation with a footprint larger than 640 acres (2.6 km²) that; " releases...a toxic pollutant in a measurable amount that will effect [sic] human health or welfare or any stage of the life cycle of salmon, into, any...water...," and, "stores...overburden, waste rock, or tailings in a way that could result in the release...of compounds that will effect [sic], directly or indirectly, surface or subsurface waters or tributaries thereto used for human consumption, salmon spawning, rearing, migration, or propagation..."

The Act would not have applied to, " operations that have received all required...permits, authorizations, licenses and approvals on or before the effective date of this Act, or to future operations of existing facilities at those sites."

An opinion on the Act issued by the State of Alaska Division of Legal and Research Services stated that the, "Ambiguity, interpretation, and drafting issues...present...interpretive issues. Existing operations might not be able to expand or build new facilities without becoming subject to the initiative's provisions." The illogical misuse of the word, "effect," and the lack of definition of the terms, "facility," and "site," in the Act are presented as examples.^[3] On the other hand, an Alaskan Superior Court judge and the Alaska Department of Law interpreted the Act to mean that existing water standards for large scale mining may not dramatically change.^[4]

All mining operations must regularly re-apply for mining permits. Opponents of the Act feared that the broad and ambiguous language in the Act would be used as a legal tool against all mining in Alaska.^[5] Supporters of the Act accuse mining interests of, "crying that the sky is falling."^[6]

The Superior Court noted that the Act was, "ambiguous and open to disparate interpretations." If the Act became law, its meaning and effects would probably have been determined by court rulings. In this case, to determine the proper meaning of the ambiguous Act, the courts would have tried to determine the intents of, and state of mind of the enacters of the law, i.e., the voters of the State of Alaska. The neutral ballot summary ( a one-paragraph summary printed on the ballot) may have been a critically important factor the courts would have considered in interpreting the meaning of Ballot Measure 4 as law.^[3]

Interest groups

Supporters of the initiative included some residents of the project area, as well as business interests that benefit from fishing lodges in the area. Opponents of the initiative included some residents of the project area, the Alaska mining community, and the Alaska Federation of Natives.^[7]

History

In April 2006 the first iteration of the Clean Water Initiative (Clean Water 1) was submitted to the State of Alaska for approval to begin collecting signatures. The initiative proposed to severely limit the byproducts of mining operations that can be released into streams and rivers and prohibits even the use of any amount of any "toxic agent that may be harmful". It applies to any mining operations larger than 640 acres (2.6 km²), although it has no effect on operations conducted under currently issued mining permits.^[8] In June 2006, Alaska Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell denied the application on grounds that it would act as an illegal appropriation of state lands. By the Alaska State Constitution, only a vote of the Alaska Legislature can appropriate state lands.^[9] Initiative backers appealed to the Alaska Superior Court, which in October 2007 ruled that the initiative did not violate the Alaska constitution and approved it to begin collection of signatures.^[10] The State of Alaska appealed the Superior Court decision to the Alaska State Supreme Court.

Backers of the Alaska Clean Water Initiative were pleased with the timing of the Superior Court ruling because it enabled them to petition for signatures at the 2007 Alaska Federation of Natives conference. They hoped that Native Corporations from around Alaska would work together to approve the initiative and oppose Pebble Mine. However, at the conference, delegates from around the state overwhelming voted to oppose the initiative on the basis of it hurting not only the Pebble Mine but any other mining operation in the State.^[11] They followed up this symbolic act with a lawsuit in November 2007 seeking to stop the certification of the initiative.^[12]

In 2007 Anti-Pebble activists circulated petitions for two versions of an "Alaska Clean Water Initiative", applying to any mining operations larger than 640 acres (2.6 km²); with the first version being more restrictive than the second. Both versions collected sufficient signatures of registered Alaska voters and were certified by Alaska state officials for placement on the statewide August 2008 election ballot.

The stricter of the two versions contained language that arguably would effectively make it impossible to permit any new large mine in Alaska, or to issue new permits to allow existing large mines to continue operations, effectively placing a ban on all mining in Alaska. The less-strict version would be little different from existing regulations, but with ambiguous language arguably open to interpretations that would severely restrict or eliminate mining in Alaska.^[13]

Proponents of Pebble challenged the constitutionality of both versions; the more-restrictive "Clean Water 1", and the less-restrictive measure, now known as Ballot Measure 4. During the course of months-long legal and regulatory battles over the two initiatives the anti-Pebble activists that initially created and supported both initiatives asked that the first initiative be struck from the ballot, stating that their cause would be best served by concentrating on a single initiative, i.e., Ballot Measure 4.

On June 9, 2008, the Alaska Supreme Court dismissed a pending case concerning Clean Water 1; an action that effectively removed Clean Water 1 from the August ballot.^[14] On July 3, 2008, the Alaska Supreme Court issued a decision allowing Clean Water 3/Ballot Measure 4 to remain on the ballot.^[15]

References