Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
Alaska Measure 2, Cruise Ship Taxes, Fees, and Environmental Regulations Initiative (August 2006)
| Alaska Measure 2 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Election date |
|
| Topic Business taxes and Civil trials |
|
| Status |
|
| Type Indirect initiated state statute |
Origin |
Alaska Measure 2 was on the ballot as an indirect initiated state statute in Alaska on August 22, 2006. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported enacting various taxes, regulations, and environmental provisions for certain cruise ships, including:
|
A "no" vote opposed enacting the proposed taxes, regulations, and environmental provisions for certain cruise ships. |
Election results
|
Alaska Measure 2 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
81,963 | 52.07% | ||
| No | 75,432 | 47.93% | ||
Aftermath
In 2009, an executive from Carnival Cruises announced that the firm was thinking about suing the State of Alaska over Measure 2. Carnival Cruises was concerned that the taxes imposed via Measure 2 were driving cruise ship companies out of Alaska and into more profitable areas.[1]
Patti Mackey, Executive Director of the Ketchikan Visitors Bureau, said, "I think Alaska has become a more difficult place for the cruise lines to do business. The tax and all of the associated regulations that were part of the ballot initiative are all part that equation, and certainly the economy right now isn't helping."
Ralph Samuels of Holland America said the costs related to Measure 2 "exacerbate" declining revenues in the cruise ship sector. Samuels claimed that declining revenue margins would result in cruise lines pulling their ships out of the state. Juneau Lawyer Joe Geldhof, who authored Measure 2, said Samuels was playing "Chicken Little politics." He elaborated, "People run around saying, 'The sky is falling, the sky is falling,' and after the chamber lunch, people say, 'The sky is falling we have to get something done'. Ralph is trying to create hysteria, to stampede legislators over the cliff and repeal the head tax."[2]
A lawsuit was filed against Measure 2 on September 18, 2009. According to the Alaska Attorney General, a legal challenge would not be able to kill the measure, but could change how the state legislature spends revenue from the tax. He stated, "The economic benefits of the cruise ship industry to Alaska are clear, but so are the passenger impacts on the state. The 1 million visitors a year this industry brings is a huge influx in a short period of time. The state and local communities spend significant amounts of money to host these visitors."[3]
On June 24, 2010, Gov. Sean Parnell (R) signed legislation that lowered the $46 tax to $34.50, with additional savings of $15 for ships that stop in certain locations.[4]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Measure 2 was as follows:
| “ | This initiative would impose a $46 per person per voyage tax on large cruise ships to pay for vessel services. It would provide for the proceeds from the tax to be deposited in the state general fund and, subject to appropriation by the legislature, distributed to municipalities. It would levy a tax on cruise ship gambling activities in state waters. It would change the way cruise ship corporate income tax is calculated. It would require cruise ship operators to gather and report more information, and get a new type of permit for sewage, graywater or other wastewater before discharging in state marine waters. It would assess a $4 per passenger berth fee and require large cruise ships to have state-employed marine engineers (Ocean Rangers) licensed by the Coast Guard to observe health, safety and wastewater treatment and discharge operations. It would authorize citizen lawsuits against an owner or operator of a large cruise ship, or against the Department of Environmental Conservation, for an alleged violation of any permit condition, provision of environmental statutes or performance of duties. It would also enable a person who provides information leading to enforcement of the law to receive 25 to 50 percent of fines imposed. It would impose additional requirements on disclosures about on-ship promotions of shore-side businesses. SHOULD THIS INITIATIVE BECOME LAW? | ” |
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
- ↑ KTUU, "A taxing situation for cruise industry," July 16, 2009
- ↑ Juneau Empire, "Cruise executive blames head tax for revenue drop," July 31, 2009
- ↑ The Alaska Journal, "AG: Alaska has strong case on cruise tax," September 25, 2009
- ↑ USA Today, "New Alaska law brings steep drop to taxes on cruise ship passengers," June 25, 2010
 |
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 |
