OPINION: Putting the PFD in Alaska’s constitution would be a disaster

Ah, this is that glorious time of year when winter’s icy grip begins to slip and days stretch by seconds, then minutes, softening the stark white, gray and black of frozen land.

Frigid temperatures are retreating, harkening the coming seasonal rebirth.

It is also a time when we should be scared to death. “Why?” you ask. This is when Alaska lawmakers trot out a lengthy list of pre-filed bills, giving us all a peek at the coming madness. This year, so far, the brand-new 33rd Legislature’s list contains scores of bills — some good, some bad, some just strange. Before this Legislature calls it quits in January 2025, there will be hundreds more.

The measures, so far, touch on everything from ditching Alaska’s ranked choice voting scheme (not a bad idea), to moving legislative sessions to Anchorage (never happen), to one that would make Juneteenth a state holiday.

Then, there are bills that would do everything from keeping Alaska on daylight saving time (can I get an “Amen?”), to prohibiting binding votes in closed caucuses, or setting up a “sunset commission” to determine whether a state law, entity or agency has outlived its usefulness.

So far, five proposed constitutional amendments await action. One would repeal a clause in the state constitution barring same-sex marriage. That anachronistic bit of discrimination was added in 1998 to Alaska’s founding document. As Ballot Measure No. 2, it was approved by 68.1% of the 224,596 voters casting ballots. U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Burgess in 2014 ruled the clause unconstitutional. Yet, it remains.

Another suggested constitutional amendment we probably should ignore would reinterpret the document’s privacy clause to allow banning abortions in Alaska. It would amend Section 1, Article I, to read: “To protect human life, nothing in this constitution may be construed to secure or protect a right to an abortion or require the State to fund an abortion.”

But there is one proposed amendment we should be paying attention to, the one that simply will not die. It is Democratic Sen. Bill Wielechowski’s continued effort to embed in the state constitution the Permanent Fund dividend and a formula to calculate the payouts.

Former Gov. Bill Walker got the dividend protection ball rolling in 2016 by ignoring the statutory dividend formula and vetoing $696 million of the $1.4 billion the Legislature appropriated for the payments, pointing out the state was drowning in red ink. Wielechowski challenged the governor’s veto authority, but the Alaska Supreme Court sided with Walker. Lawmakers then overrode the formula over the next two years.

Dividends since have been whatever the Legislature and governor say they are. Wielechowski and others, Gov. Mike Dunleavy among them, want to change that. From a public policy perspective, the Permanent Fund dividend’s adoption by lawmakers in 1980 as a way to protect the fund’s corpus — from the sticky fingers of those very lawmakers — was a goofy decision. Just like that, the loot became an entitlement, then a right — and it has sparked barroom brawls since.

It has become the tail wagging the dog, an annual legislative slugfest over who gets what and how much, or which formula should be used to arrive at a figure that is never enough — or far too much. Lawsuits. Puerile political puffery. Whimsy. Legislative loggerheads. Billions in state savings up in smoke. The dividend is the quick answer to the perennial question: What can we do to ensure Alaska shoots itself in both fiscal feet?

Is the dividend good for the state? Oh, you betcha. It pumps oodles of cash into the economy, helping those who need it most. So, why not protect it in the Alaska Constitution? Because it is not as important as services such as public safety, health or the courts. What are we willing to give up to ensure a dividend, no matter what?

Remember, Alaska has other constitutional obligations: State retirement pay and education funding come immediately to mind. What happens in a lean year, when Alaska’s roller coaster economy flies off the rails and there is not enough to pay for everything? A constitutionally mandated dividend formula would make the decisions for us.

If we really are determined to have an annual dividend — and, despite my fondest wish, it is not going away — the answer is not to enshrine it in the constitution; it is to adopt a clear law, with an easily understood dividend calculation that sets out a path for an affordable payout — and then demanding the law be followed.

It will work. As I have said before: The dividend program worked fine without constitutional protection from its inception in 1980 until Walker’s veto.

Allowing the dividend and its calculation’s enshrinement in the state constitution would be a step toward eventual fiscal disaster.

Paul Jenkins is a former metro editor of the Orlando Sentinel and was an Associated Press reporter, a managing editor of the Anchorage Times, an editor of the Voice of the Times and editor of the Anchorage Daily Planet.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.