This photo shows the Alaska State Capitol. (Peter Segall / Juneau Empire File)

This photo shows the Alaska State Capitol. (Peter Segall / Juneau Empire File)

Opinion: Complicated tax policy should not be decided at the ballot box

The legislative process isn’t pretty, but it is the system in place for such matters.

  • By Michael Geraghty
  • Monday, August 31, 2020 12:57pm
  • Opinion

By Michael Geraghty

The issue of what to do with oil taxes is once again before us. The question will be presented in the form of Ballot Measure 1 in November. While Alaskans have proven to be smart and savvy voters, I confess to a well-developed skepticism about putting complicated fiscal issues on the ballot for a simple up or down vote.

For that reason, I intend to vote no — not because of the merits or because I have more insight into this issue than other Alaskans — but because the initiative process in this instance leaves too many questions unanswered. In my opinion, the paramount importance of oil taxation to the future of this state calls for a measure like this to go through the scrutiny of the legislative process.

For sure, that process is messy – we’ve all heard the quip about the comparison to making sausage (perhaps an insult to sausage makers). But in a democracy, it is the only way I know to ensure a rigorous analysis of important and complex policy choices.

I have the privilege to know, and have worked with, several of the ballot measure’s sponsors, and I hold them in the highest regard. However, I do not believe they should replace the Legislature as the primary crafters of state tax policy, and I respectfully disagree with their decision to skip the legislative process and to toss this issue straight to voters.

Ideally, if Ballot Measure 1 were introduced as a bill — and I suspect there are legislators who support the measure — it would endure many hours, if not days, of hearings before several committees in both bodies of the Legislature. There would be input from all stakeholders: representatives from the oil industry would state on the record how the initiative would impact their Alaska business; independent economists and experts would model the tax proposal to provide a third-party view of what the measure would actually do; proponents of higher taxes would explain and justify their reasons and clarify their intent; and members of the public would testify as to its pros and cons.

It is admittedly a long and tedious process, but the give-and-take among stakeholders, and the additional analysis that accompanies such measures, invariably leads to a balancing of interests — including the public interest — resulting in a bill that is informed of the facts and capable of garnering the necessary support for passage.

Some knowledgeable observers have criticized Ballot Measure 1’s language as ambiguous and confusing. This, too, can be addressed through the legislative process with amendments to clarify or cure deficiencies and ambiguities in the text. If Ballot Measure One is passed, those issues will be left for the courts to decide, post-enactment — and without the benefit of any legislative record to assist in their analysis.

The biggest elephant in the room today is the historic collapse of oil prices and the widespread economic hardship caused by COVID-19. In fairness to Ballot Measure 1’s sponsors, I don’t believe this could have been predicted. Nonetheless, reasonable Alaskans must wonder about how the ballot measure will impact the oil industry in our state in light of these unprecedented events.

Again, it may be my personal bias, but I have serious reservations about leaving an incredibly complicated and nuanced issue like oil taxation to the persuasion of sloganeering and sound bites. The legislative process is not pretty, and it can be very frustrating, but that is how our system is supposed to work in my humble opinion — particularly when dealing with issues so important to the financial stability of our state. Given all these factors, I intend to vote no on Ballot Measure 1.

• Michael Geraghty served as Attorney General for the state of Alaska from 2012 to 2014. Columns, My Turns and Letters to the Editor represent the view of the author, not the view of the Juneau Empire. Have something to say? Here’s how to submit a My Turn or letter.

More in Opinion

Web
Have something to say?

Here’s how to add your voice to the conversation.

U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan addresses a joint session of the Alaska State Legislature in the House chambers on Feb. 7, 2023. (Mark Sabbatini / Juneau Empire file photo)
Opinion: Sen. Sullivan sinks to a new low

Last week, Sen. Dan Sullivan mimicked Donald Trump’s endless stream of baseless… Continue reading

Members of local business organizations greet cruise passengers with maps and other handouts as they disembark from the Norwegian Bliss on April 25, 2022. (Michael S. Lockett / Juneau Empire file photo)
A call for collaboration, not restrictions on cruise ship tourism

Please don’t sign. I feel it is time to speak up about… Continue reading

Juneau School District Superintendent Frank Hauser provides an overview of restructuring options being considered during a Community Budget Input Session at Thunder Mountain High School on Jan. 31. (Mark Sabbatini / Juneau Empire file photo)
Opinion: Smearing school board members and the superintendent is vindictive and destructive

A school consolidation plan announced by the Juneau School District (JSD) has… Continue reading

(Juneau Empire file photo)
Letter: Gloomy predictions for ship-free days are a misleading scare tactic

“What? Only one day a week ship-free? Can’t we have Sundays too?”… Continue reading

(Juneau Empire file photo)
Letter: A day of rest from cruise ships is good for Juneau

A lot has been said about the Saturday free day from large… Continue reading

(City and Borough of Juneau photo)
My Turn: Property tax assessment and guardrails

The “money grab” by the CBJ Assessor’s Office is over with passage… Continue reading

Most Read