Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Alaska Measure 1, 90-Day Legislative Session Initiative (2006)
| Alaska Measure 1 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Election date |
|
| Topic State legislative processes and sessions |
|
| Status |
|
| Type Indirect initiated state statute |
Origin |
Alaska Measure 1 was on the ballot as an indirect initiated state statute in Alaska on November 7, 2006. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported decreasing the length of legislative sessions from 121 days to 90 days. |
A "no" vote opposed decreasing the length of legislative sessions from 121 days to 90 days. |
Election results
|
Alaska Measure 1 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
117,675 | 50.83% | ||
| No | 113,832 | 49.17% | ||
Aftermath
The first 90-day legislative session was held in 2007. Sen. Gene Therriault (R-F) predicted that 90 days would not be sufficient and special sessions would have to be held.[1]
In 2010, a report stated that legislators were not getting enough sleep and were saying they had limited time to communicate with constituents over the three month period. The report was produced by a legislative subcommittee in the Alaska House of Representatives and was led by Rep. Paul Seaton (R-31).
Sen. Gary Stevens (R-P) proposed changing the legislative session length back to 120 days. He proposed a bill to do so in 2001, saying, "The rationale was to save money, but it hasn’t saved money... I think the public has been shortchanged." Stevens also said that there was less time to review bills and less time for public involvement. Sen. Thomas Wagoner (R-Q), who supported the initiative, disagreed. He said, "I think it’s working fine. We save everything until the last 10 days anyway, that’s when the business gets done."[2]
Sen. Stevens' bill was approved by the Alaska Senate, but never came up for vote in the Alaska House of Representatives.[3]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Measure 1 was as follows:
| “ | This initiative would reduce the maximum length of a regular legislative session from 121 days to 90 days. SHOULD THIS INITIATIVE BECOME LAW? YES NO | ” |
Support
Supporters of the 90-day legislative session argued that a shorter session was be cost efficient. Proponents of the initiative noted that 27 other states had, at the time, shorter legislative sessions and that a 90-day session would be an incentive to introduce only necessary legislation and curb excessive laws. A shorter session would also allow for more citizens to run for office since they would spend less time away from their jobs, families and communities.
Opposition
Opposition was led by Sen. Gene Therriault, who said a shorter session would lead to less public participation. Opponents also argued that shorter regular sessions would result in more special sessions and higher travel costs. Furthermore, opponents argued that lobbyists and interest groups will have more influence in a 90 day session due to time constraints on bills.
Path to the ballot
An indirect initiated state statute is a citizen-initiated ballot measure that amends state statute. While a direct initiative is placed on the ballot once supporters file the required number of valid signatures, an indirect initiative is first presented to the state legislature. Legislators have a certain number of days, depending on the state, to adopt the initiative into law. Should legislators take no action or reject the initiative, a second round of signatures is required to put the initiative on the ballot for voters to decide.
See also
External links
Footnotes
 |
State of Alaska Juneau (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
