On August 30, the Alaska Attorney General ruled that a statewide initiative that is being circulated violates the same-subject rule, and is therefor invalid. The initiative leads off with tougher campaign finance restrictions. But then it also includes a section setting up a “top-four” election system, in which the only candidates in the November election (for congress and partisan state office) would be the four candidates who polled the most votes in the August primary. See this story. Thanks to Scott Kohlhaas for the link.
Most states, including Alaska, require that initiatives must deal with just one subject. The attorney general said the campaign finance changes, and the top-four provision, are separate subjects.
Thus the People must repeal the one-subject stuff restriction.
One subject stuff in laws is routinely ignored by gerrymander oligarchs —
also basically impossible for the courts to deal with it.
Good. This is better than Top Two, but is still a bad issue.
@DR,
Why must the one-subject restriction be removed?
JR –
Does some sort of CONTROL FREAK LAW for TWO or more classes of persons with civil torts and crimes at various times and places have multiple subjects ???
How many super-vague ONE subject court ops so far ???
@DR,
It is not even close in this case.
Read the text of the proposed initiative and the AG opinion.
The proponents should be able to split the proposal into two initiatives.
Have to got to go to State SCT before circulating any Init petition ???
— part of the new Age TOTAL paralysis/procedure regarding ANY voter reforms.
@DR,
Alaska does not have a Secretary of State. The Elections Division is under the Lieutenant Governor.
Yes potential initiatives are reviewed before circulaion.
Have you had an opportunity to review the AG opinion and the text of the proposed initiative?
State AG HACKS have NO judicial power – unless they are lawless tyrants.
PR and AppV and TOTSOP
Attorney Generals have the authority to provide legal advice to other government officials.
Have you read the AG’s opinion? Would you like assistance in finding it?
Don’t use acronyms that most won’t recognize if you want your message to be understood.
JR wrote –
Attorney Generals have the authority to provide legal advice to other government officials.
—
Such *advice* is NO defense for REAL/ACTUAL/FACTUAL/LEGAL violations of USA Const, laws and treaties or State Consts or laws —
ie about as good *advice* as any TV ambulance chaser lawyer *advice*.
“Don’t use acronyms that most won’t recognize if you want your message to be understood.” – Jim Riley to Demo Rep
You really believe he WANTS to be understood? I very seriously doubt that!
@DR,
Here is a link to the AG’s opinion.
http://www.law.state.ak.us/pdf/opinions/opinions_2019/19-003_2019200578.pdf
I’m surprised that you seem to be an advocate for log-rolling.
CO
VERY DIFFICULT TO EDUCATE THE UN-EDUCATED AND ESP THE IMPOSSIBLE-TO-EDUCATE — WITH OR WITHOUT ACRONYMS.
1/2 OR LESS VOTES X 1/2 RIGGED GERRYMANDER AREAS = 1/4 OR LESS CONTROL = ANTI-DEMOCRACY OLIGARCH REGIMES = USA CONGRESS, ALL STATE LEGIS, MANY LOCAL REGIMES —
IE USA/STATE/LOCAL LAWS OF, BY AND FOR THE OLIGARCHS – SPECIAL INTEREST GANGS – ESP THOSE GETTING GOVT $$$ — SINCE 1607/1776/1789.
IMPOSSIBLE MATH FOR IMPOSSIBLE-TO-EDUCATE MATH MORONS.
—
JR
Advocate for MAJORITY RULE [AKA DEMOCRACY] IN LAW MAKING.
PR and AppV and TOTSOP — FOR THE REST OF US
@DR,
Have you an opportunity to read the AG’s opinion?
Do you favor log-rolling?