Elections, normally thought to be straightforward affairs, often turn into rather complicated exercises in civic responsibility. In the general election in Alaska in November 1982, for example, voters went to the polls to choose among four gubernatorial candidates and eight ballot propositions. Bill Sheffield, Tom Fink, Dick Randolph, and Joe Vogler ran respectively as Democrat, Republican, Libertarian and Alaska Independence Party candidates. Voters on the right split their votes between Fink, 37 percent, Randolph, 15 percent and Vogler, 1.5 percent; Sheffield won election with 46 percent of the total.
Of the eight ballot propositions, three garnered significant interest and commentary before the election: one to repeal a rural preference for subsistence harvest of traditional resources, one to move the state capital, and one to transfer ownership of most federal land in Alaska to the state, each with a colorful history, the last sponsored by Dick Randolph.
Voters rejected the repeal of the rural harvest preference with 58 percent of the vote; they rejected the capital move with 53 percent of the vote. But they passed the land transfer, with a convincing 72 percent.
1982 came two years after passage by Congress of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the lands act that redesignated 60 percent of Alaska's land already under federal title. ANILCA put over two-thirds of Alaska's federal land into new conservation units.
The land transfer initiative, called the "Tundra Rebellion," imitated the "Sagebrush Rebellion," the movement to transfer Western federal lands to the states fomented by Ronald Reagan's Interior Secretary James Watt. That movement arose soon after federal legislation ending any homesteading on federal lands. At the same time, in Alaska people felt sorely aggrieved and abused by the long suspension of and limitations on the selection of state lands authorized by the Alaska Statehood Act. During the suspension, between 1967 and 1980, Congress worked out the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and ANILCA. Most Alaskans found the suspension oppressive. The Tundra Rebellion was a way of striking back.
In 1983 Attorney General Norm Gorsuch ruled that the Tundra Rebellion initiative was unconstitutional, and ordered state officers to ignore it. Here's the section of the Alaska Constitution that the Tundra initiative violated: "The State of Alaska and its people forever disclaim any right or title in or to any property belonging to the United States or subject to its disposition ... (XII, 12)." And just to be clear: "All provisions of the Act admitting Alaska to the Union which reserve rights or powers to the United States, as well as those describing the terms or conditions of the grants of lands or other property, are consented to fully by the State and its people (XII, 13)."
Despite a great deal of agitation and bombast by Secretary Watt, the Sagebrush Rebellion failed. The reason was that the governors of the Western states did not want title to or control of the federal land in their states. And it's a lot of land: 84.5 percent of Nevada, 57.4 percent of Utah, 53.1 percent of Oregon, 50.2 percent of Idaho, and smaller amounts of the others.
First, the governors realized that their states would have to start paying for administering those lands, and at the same time they would lose the federal revenue being generated by them, including the federal mineral lease revenue rebated to them annually. Second, they knew that if they passed the title to private corporations and parties, which the energy companies dearly wished, it would be a political disaster, generating anger from those who didn't get what they wanted, and a populist revolt from the grass roots. R. McGreggor Cawley's "Federal Land, Western Anger" is a good place to review the story.
Now the Alaska Legislature is considering House Bill 115, which provides for the transfer of certain federal lands in Alaska to the state. Legislative Counsel in the Legislative Affairs Agency, asked about the constitutionality of HB 115, has responded that it is unconstitutional because it violates Article XII, Section 12 of the Alaska Constitution, and Section 4 of the Alaska Statehood Act.
Some have said HB 115 is merely symbolic. If that's true, what's it a symbol of? Failure to recognize the many benefits of Alaska's federal lands? Or just an inability to accept reality?
Steve Haycox is professor emeritus of history at the University of Alaska Anchorage.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com