Alaska Ballot Measure 1, North Slope Oil Production Tax Increase Initiative (2020)

Alaska Ballot Measure 1
Election date November 3, 2020
Topic Taxes and Natural resources
Status d Defeated
Type State statute	Origin Citizens
List of Alaska measuresAlaska Ballot Measure 1Alaska Ballot Measure 2Submit

Alaska Ballot Measure 1, the North Slope Oil Production Tax Increase Initiative, was on the ballot in Alaska as an indirect initiated state statute on November 3, 2020. Ballot Measure 1 was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported increasing taxes on oil production fields that (a) are located above 68 degrees north latitude in Alaska, which is an area known as the North Slope, (b) have a lifetime output of at least 400 million barrels of oil; and (c) had an output of at least 40,000 barrels per day in the preceding calendar year.

A "no" vote opposed this ballot initiative to increase taxes on North Slope production fields that produce above a certain amount of oil.

Election results

Alaska Ballot Measure 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		145,392	42.14%
No		199,667	57.86%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

Which oil production fields would the ballot initiative have affected?

The ballot initiative would have increased taxes on oil production fields that meet the following criteria:

• located above 68 degrees north latitude in Alaska, which is an area known as the North Slope;
• have a lifetime output of at least 400 million barrels of oil; and
• had an output of at least 40,000 barrels per day in the preceding calendar year.

According to Robin Brena, chairperson of the campaign behind the ballot initiative, three oil production fields—Alpine, Kuparuk, and Prudhoe Bay—met those criteria.

What would the new taxes have been?

The ballot initiative would have taxed oil production using an alternative gross minimum tax or an additional production tax, whichever is greater for each month and each field.

• The alternative gross minimum tax would have been 10 percent of the gross value of oil at the point of production where the average per-barrel price for Alaska North Slope (ANS) crude oil for sale on the U.S. West Coast is less than $50. The alternative gross minimum tax would have increased by 1 percentage point per $5 increment increase in the average per-barrel price for ANS crude oil until maxing out at 15 percent.

• The additional production tax would have been the difference between the average production tax value of oil per month and $50, multiplied by the volume of taxable oil produced by the producer for that month, and multiplied by 15 percent. The additional production tax formula would have also eliminated the per-taxable-barrel credit.

The ballot initiative would have also required that filings and information submitted to the Alaska Department of Revenue relating to the initiative's taxes be considered public records.

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding the ballot initiative?

See also: Campaign finance

Vote Yes for Alaska's Fair Share led the campaign in support of the ballot initiative. Robin Brena, the chair of former Gov. Bill Walker's (I) Transition Subcommittee on Oil and Gas, was chairperson of the campaign. Brena was also the campaign's largest donor, contributing $1.32 million. Overall, Vote Yes for Alaska's Fair Share received $1.66 million in contributions.

OneAlaska led the campaign in opposition to the ballot initiative. Chantal Walsh, the chairperson of OneAlaska, also worked in Gov. Walker's administration, serving as the Alaska Oil and Gas Division Director. OneAlaska received $20.94 million in contributions, with five oil and gas companies— ExxonMobil ($5.82 million), Conoco Phillips ($4.84 million), BP Exploration Alaska ($4.54 million), , Hilcorp Energy ($2.90 million), and Hilcorp North Slope ($1.54 million)—providing 94 percent of the campaign's funds.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

An Act changing the oil and gas production tax for certain fields, units, and nonunitized reservoirs on the North Slope

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:

“

This act would change the oil and gas production tax for areas of the North Slope where a company produced more than 40,000 barrels of oil per day in the prior year and more than 400 million barrels total. The new areas would be divided up based on “fields, units, and nonunitized reservoirs” that meet the production threshold. The act does not define these terms. For any areas that meet the production threshold, the tax would be the greater of one of two new taxes. (1) One tax would be a tax on the gross value at the point of production of the oil at a rate of 10% when oil is less than $50 per-barrel. This tax would increase to a maximum of 15% when oil is $70 per-barrel or higher. No deductions could take the tax below the 10% to 15% floor. (2) The other tax, termed an “additional tax,” would be based on a calculation of a production tax value for the oil that would allow lease expenditure and transportation cost deductions. This tax on production tax value would be calculated based on the difference between the production tax value of the oil and $50. The difference between the two would be multiplied by the volume of oil, and then that amount would be multiplied by 15%. The existing per-taxable-barrel credit would not apply. The act uses the term “additional tax” but it does not specify what the new tax is in addition to. The tax would be calculated for each field, unit, or nonunitized reservoir on a monthly basis. Taxes are currently calculated on an annual basis, with monthly estimated payments. Since these new taxes would only apply to certain areas, a taxpayer would still have to submit annual taxes for the areas where the new taxes do not apply. The act would also make all filings and supporting information relating to the calculation and payment of the new taxes “a matter of public record.” The act does not specify the process for disclosure of public records.

”

Full text

The full text of the ballot initiative is below:

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The lieutenant governor wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 10, and the FRE is 60. The word count for the ballot title is 20, and the estimated reading time is 5 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 12, and the FRE is 60. The word count for the ballot summary is 333, and the estimated reading time is 1 minute, 28 seconds.

Support

Vote Yes for Alaska's Fair Share led the campaign in support of the ballot initiative. Robin Brena, the chair of former Gov. Bill Walker's (I) Transition Subcommittee on Oil and Gas, was chairperson of the campaign.

Supporters

Officials

• State Senator Bill Wielechowski (D)

Arguments

• Robin Brena, chairperson of Vote Yes for Alaska's Fair Share: "The primary reason Alaskans are not sharing in the wealth being created from our oil resources is because we are not getting a fair share of oil production revenues from our largest and most profitable fields. We are currently getting the smallest share from the sale of our oil in our history and are giving away $1 billion to $2 billion per year in unnecessary tax breaks to the producers of our largest and most profitable fields. ... We are giving away our oil, and with it, our future. We can no longer afford to provide massive tax breaks for oil produced from our largest and most profitable fields."
• Former State Rep. Les Gara (D-20): "Ballot Measure 1 is straightforward. It implements a modest 10% oil production tax on our three largest fields — legally called “units.” At high prices, a windfall profits provision allows the rate to rise modestly to a maximum of 15%, so Alaskans can share fairly as profits rise. And it stops oil companies from hiding their Alaska profits — currently, only ConocoPhillips is required to reveal them under federal securities laws. Alaska’s combined oil company production tax under Ballot Measure 1, plus oil royalty payments, would still be lower than the combined production tax and royalty costs companies pay in Texas, North Dakota, Louisiana and most major oil-producing states. ... We should be full partners with our oil industry neighbors, not junior partners. It’s your oil. We shouldn’t give it away at a price that robs students, workers, businesses and all Alaskans of a better future."
• State Sen. Bill Wielechowski (D-H): “With our savings gone and huge deficits, Alaska cannot afford to simply give away our resources like the current tax regime does. I’m not willing to consider other revenue measures like a sales tax or personal income tax until we fix our abysmally broken oil tax system. This is our oil, we deserve our share.”

Official arguments

The following is the argument in support of Ballot Measure 1 found in the Official Election Pamphlet:

Alaska Official Election Pamphlet: Over 39,000 Alaskans petitioned to put Ballot Measure 1 on the ballot because Alaskans are hurting. Our PFDs have been cut, our university system has been gutted, support for municipalities and school bonds has been all but eliminated, our marine highway system has been crippled, construction projects have ground to a halt, senior programs have been discarded, critical maintenance on our roads and public buildings has been ignored, $16 billion of our savings has been depleted, and Alaskans are losing jobs largely because we are not getting a Fair Share for our oil. Alaskans Are Getting a Bad Deal for Our Oil. Since Senate Bill 21 passed, Alaskans are getting less for our oil than at any time in our history and less than any other major oil resource owner in the world. Because of SB21, Alaska’s net production revenues have collapsed from $19 billion for five years before SB21, ($3.8 billion per year) to $0 five years after SB21, even though oil prices have only declined by 35%. Since SB21, Alaska has paid oil companies more in cashable credits than they have paid us in production taxes. Since SB21, Alaskans have received far less than Texans, North Dakotans, Russians, Iraqis, Nigerians, Brazilians, and Norwegians. Ballot Measure 1: will fairly and transparently increase Alaskans’ share of oil revenues. It will keep more of our oil revenues in Alaska, create jobs for Alaskans, fund PFDs, protect essential services, and build Alaska’s future; apply to only our three largest and most profitable fields; the Prudhoe Bay Unit, the Kuparuk River Unit, and the Colville River Unit should pay a Fair Share to Alaskans – this will not apply to new fields; increase Alaskans’ share of production revenues by $1 billion per year from our major fields by increasing the minimum rate from 4% to 10%, eliminating unnecessary $8 per-barrel credits, and increasing rates progressively when oil prices and producer profits rise; limit deductions from our share of our major fields to costs related to those fields; and give Alaskans the right to know important information about our major fields by requiring production tax filings to be public. Vote YES for Jobs. $1 billion more in Alaska will create jobs for Alaskans. Vote YES to Protect the Permanent Fund and PFDs. Our Permanent Fund and PFDs are only sustainable if Alaskans recover a Fair Share for our oil. Vote YES to Help the State Deficit. The State has a massive deficit and no plan to solve it. Getting a Fair Share for our oil is the first place Alaskans should look for additional revenues. Alaskans’ Choice is Clear: (1) Vote Yes for a Fair Share for our oil, OR (2) continue to give away our oil to major oil companies, cut our PFDs, cut essential services, and tax ourselves to recover the revenues we are giving away. Vote YES for Alaska’s Fair Share and for Alaska’s Future. Robin Brena, Anchorage Merrick Peirce, Fairbanks Jane Angvik, Anchorage

Opposition

OneAlaska led the campaign in opposition to the ballot initiative. Chantal Walsh, a petroleum engineer and former Oil and Gas Division Director for Governor Bill Walker (I), was chairperson of the campaign.

Opponents

Officials

• State Senator Mia Costello (R)
• State Senator Shelley Hughes (R)
• State Representative Glenn Prax (R)

Corporations

• BP Exploration Alaska
• Chevron USA
• ConocoPhillips Alaska
• ExxonMobil
• Hilcorp Energy Company

Organizations

• Alaska Oil and Gas Association
• Americans for Tax Reform

Arguments

• Chantal Walsh, chairperson of OneAlaska: "With several significant, new development projects in the works, adding a punitive new tax on companies that are trying to invest in Alaska is the wrong idea at the wrong time."
• Crawford Patkotak, board chairperson of the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation: "Make no mistake, this effort, if successful, would cripple the industry’s ability to invest in new technology and methods to safely extract additional oil from these fields. This means fewer jobs and increased uncertainty, and that is why I strongly oppose this ballot measure."
• Sen. Shelley Hughes (R-F), Sen. Mia Costello (R-K), and Rep. Mike Prax (R-3): "Economics 101: If dollars used as up-front capital to develop fields are sucked up in taxes, the fields will not be developed. If taxes are lower elsewhere, businesses will shift their focus elsewhere. Based on this knowledge, if Ballot Measure 1 were to pass, how would things unfold in Alaska? Initially, oil revenues collected by the state would increase, but in a mere few years, oil revenues would drastically drop. Therefore, Alaskans, Ballot Measure 1 puts your PFD at tremendous risk. If we want full PFDs into the future, we must oppose Ballot Measure 1."
• Michael Geraghty (R), former Attorney General of Alaska: "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."

Official arguments

The following is the argument in support of Ballot Measure 1 found in the Official Election Pamphlet:

Alaska Official Election Pamphlet: On November 3, Alaskans will decide an issue of utmost importance to the future of our state. Ballot Measure 1 would dramatically raise oil taxes by at least 150% and can exceed over 300% depending on the price of oil. Ballot Measure 1 puts Alaska jobs, our economy, and our future at risk. According to independent economic analysis, the oil and gas industry is “the single most important economic engine in the state.” The industry supports over 25% of all jobs and wages in Alaska. Each year, over $4.4 billion is spent by the industry with 1,000 Alaska businesses (McDowell Group, January 2020). While Ballot Measure 1 may bring in additional state revenue in the short term, I am voting no on Ballot Measure 1 because a massive tax increase will cripple Alaska’s economy. Long-term, less spending in Alaska means less production, which means fewer jobs, a further weakened economy, and reduced PFDs; Alaska’s future is truly at risk if Ballot Measure 1 passes. It is the wrong time to tax any industry in Alaska right now. Alaska’s economy is more fragile than ever, and the stakes have never been higher. As a former director of the Oil & Gas Division for Governor Walker, I know firsthand that our current tax system is working, and prior to the Russia-Saudi Arabia oil price war and global pandemic, Alaska was on the verge of substantial increases in activity in both core and new fields. Increasing taxes will do nothing to bring these projects to reality and will make the state’s economic recovery extremely difficult, if not impossible. I cannot understand how Alaska could be considering a tax increase while other oil producing states and countries are adopting policies to help the industry maintain jobs and grow production during these uncertain economic times. Regrettably, the Vote Yes campaign has done a deep disservice to voters by basing its campaign on “a litany of outright lies or misleading claims” as part of “a naked attempt to fool voters,” according to the Alaska Journal of Commerce newspaper. Alaskan voters deserve facts not politically-charged campaign rhetoric. If taxes should be raised, ballot measures are not the right tool. If state oil taxes should be adjusted, Alaskans deserve to have this discussion in the open where options are analyzed, debated, and the best solution is put forward. Ballot Measure 1 was written by oil industry critics behind closed doors without any public review. Complicated oil tax policy should not be decided via ballot measures. Over 500 businesses, unions, and organizations are Voting No on 1. I am proud to Chair the OneALASKA coalition; representing over 500 small businesses, labor unions, Alaska Native Corporations, and community groups, and thousands of citizens that believe Ballot Measure 1 is the wrong solution for Alaska’s future. We know that a massive tax hike on Alaska’s largest economic engine will damage our economy, small businesses and jobs. On November 3, please join us in Voting NO on Ballot Measure 1. Chantal Walsh – Chair/OneALASKA

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Alaska ballot measures

The Vote Yes for Alaska's Fair Share PAC was registered to support the ballot initiative. The committee had raised $1.66 million. The largest contributor was Robin Brena, who contributed $1.32 million.

The OneAlaska PAC was registered to oppose the ballot initiative. OneAlaska received $20.94 million in contributions, with five oil and gas companies—ExxonMobil ($5.82 million), Conoco Phillips ($4.84 million), BP Exploration Alaska ($4.54 million), , Hilcorp Energy ($2.90 million), and Hilcorp North Slope ($1.54 million)—providing 94 percent of the campaign's funds.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$370,245.83	$1,288,893.17	$1,659,139.00	$368,243.59	$1,657,136.76
Oppose	$18,777,856.40	$2,157,814.46	$20,935,670.86	$19,663,307.91	$21,821,122.37
Total	$19,148,102.23	$3,446,707.63	$22,594,809.86	$20,031,551.50	$23,478,259.13

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the ballot initiative.

Committees in support of Ballot Measure 1
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Vote Yes for Alaska's Fair Share	$370,245.83	$1,288,893.17	$1,659,139.00	$368,243.59	$1,657,136.76
Total	$370,245.83	$1,288,893.17	$1,659,139.00	$368,243.59	$1,657,136.76

Donors

The following were the top five donors who contributed to the support committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Robin Brena	$126,467.24	$1,189,372.93	$1,315,840.17
David Carter	$50,000.00	$0.00	$50,000.00
Texas Petition Strategies	$0.00	$43,333.34	$43,333.34
RSD Properties LLC	$0.00	$39,399.44	$39,399.44
Ross Thompson	$10,000.00	$0.00	$10,000.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to the ballot initiative.

Committees in opposition to Ballot Measure 1
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
OneAlaska - Vote No on 1	$18,777,856.40	$2,157,814.46	$20,935,670.86	$19,663,307.91	$21,821,122.37
Total	$18,777,856.40	$2,157,814.46	$20,935,670.86	$19,663,307.91	$21,821,122.37

Donors

The following were the top five donors who contributed to the opposition committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
ExxonMobil	$5,450,000.40	$368,108.41	$5,818,108.81
Conoco Phillips Company	$4,003,193.00	$834,615.00	$4,837,808.00
BP Exploration Alaska	$4,519,151.00	$25,654.26	$4,544,805.26
Hilcorp Energy	$2,464,157.00	$428,350.00	$2,892,507.00
Hilcorp North Slope	$1,539,036.00	$0.00	$1,539,036.00

Background

Senate Bill 21 (2013)

In 2013, the Alaska State Legislature passed Senate Bill 21 (SB 21), which made changes to the state's tax on oil production. Before SB 21, oil companies paid a base rate of 25 percent on the first $30 of net profits from a barrel of oil, plus a 0.4 percentage point increase in the tax rate for each additional $1 in profit per barrel that maxed out at 50 percent. Under SB 21, oil companies paid a base rate of 35 percent on net profits from a barrel of oil with no increases for additional profits. SB 21 also enacted a per-taxable-barrel credit of $5 and additional incentives.

Alaska Measure 1 (2014)

See also: Alaska Oil Tax Cuts Veto Referendum, Ballot Measure 1 (August 2014)

After Gov. Sean Parnell (R) signed SB 21, a campaign launched a veto referendum to overturn the legislation. The veto referendum was certified for the ballot as Measure 1. At the election on August 19, 2014, 52.7 percent of electors voted to uphold SB 21. Backers of the veto referendum raised $488,090, including $310,000 from businessman BJ Gottstein. Opponents raised $14.22 million, including $3.6 million from BP, $3.6 million from ExxonMobil, $2.5 million from ConocoPhillips Alaska, and $1.5 million from ConocoPhillips.

State oil and gas revenue

The following graph illustrates the state's oil and gas revenue from 1998 to 2019. The total revenue includes the oil and gas production tax, conservation tax, conservation surcharge, oil and gas corporate income tax, oil and gas property tax, and leasing royalties. Data is from the Alaska Department of Revenue and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources.

Tax policies on the ballot in 2020

See also: Taxes on the ballot

In 2020, voters in 14 states voted on 21 ballot measures addressing tax-related policies. Ten of the measures addressed taxes on properties, three were related to income tax rates, two addressed tobacco taxes, one addressed business-related taxes, one addressed sales tax rates, one addressed fees and surcharges, and one was related to tax-increment financing (TIF).

Click Show to read details about the tax-related measures on statewide ballots in 2020.

Tax-related policy ballot measures in 2020

Income Tax a/ot Arizona Proposition 208: The campaign Invest in Education proposed the ballot initiative to enact a 3.50% income tax, in addition to the existing income tax (4.50% in 2020), on income above $250,000 (single filing) or $500,000 (joint filing). Proposition 208 was designed to distribute the revenue from the 3.50% income tax to teacher and classroom support staff salaries, retention programs, and career and technical education programs. a Colorado Proposition 116: In 1987, the state's income tax was changed from graduated rates to a flat rate. Going into 2020, that flat rate was 4.63%. The ballot initiative reduced the rate from 4.63% to 4.55%. d Illinois Allow for Graduated Income Tax Amendment: The Illinois State Legislature proposed this constitutional amendment to allow the state to enact legislation for a graduated income tax. Going into 2020, the state constitution required that the state personal income tax be a flat rate. Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D), who advocated for a graduated income tax during his gubernatorial campaign, was providing funds to the campaign backing the amendment. Business-Related Taxes d Alaska Ballot Measure 1: The campaign Vote Yes for Alaska's Fair Share proposed the ballot initiative to increase taxes on oil production fields located in Alaska's North Slope that exceeded certain output minimums. According to Robin Brena, chairperson of Vote Yes for Alaska's Fair Share, three oil production fields—Alpine, Kuparuk, and Prudhoe Bay—met those criteria. BP, Conoco Phillips, ExxonMobil, and Hilcorp Energy funded the campaign to defeat Measure 1. a Nebraska Initiative 431: The initiative was designed to impose an annual tax of 20% on gross gambling revenue of licensed gaming operators; distributing 2.5% of tax revenue to the Compulsive Gamblers Assistance Fund, 2.5% to the General Fund, 70% to the Property Tax Credit Cash Fund, and 25% to the counties where gambling is authorized at licensed racetracks. The initiative was one of three initiatives that together were designed to authorize, regulate, and tax gambling at racetracks in Nebraska. Property-Related Taxes d California Proposition 15: The ballot initiative would have amended Proposition 13 (1978), which required that residential, commercial, and industrial properties are taxed based on their purchase price, with an annual adjustment based on inflation or 2%, whichever was lower. Proposition 15 would have required commercial and industrial properties, except those zoned as commercial agriculture, to be taxed based on their market value. In California, the proposal to assess taxes on commercial and industrial properties at market value, while continuing to assess taxes on residential properties based on the purchase price, is known as split roll. The state fiscal analyst estimated that Proposition 15 would generate between $6.5 billion and $11.5 billion. Proposition 15 would have required that the revenue be allocated to local governments and schools. a California Proposition 19: The state Legislature proposed the constitutional amendment as a compromise with the California Association of Realtors, which had qualified a different ballot initiative. Proposition 19 was designed to allow tax assessments to be transferred from someone's old home to their new home anywhere in the state and increased the number of times that tax assessments can be transferred from one to three for persons over 55 years old or with severe disabilities. Proposition 19 was also designed to require that inherited homes that are not used as principal residences, such as second homes or rentals, be reassessed at market value when transferred. a Colorado Amendment B: The constitutional amendment repealed the Gallagher Amendment (1982), which required a 45%-55% ratio between residential assessment rates and non-residential assessment rates regarding tax revenue. Therefore, Amendment B permitted the Colorado Legislature to define tax assessment limits without reference to the 45%-55% ratio requirement. In Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, New Jersey, and Virginia, voters also decided eight ballot measures related to exemptions, adjustments, and payments: Florida Amendment 5, Florida Amendment 6, Referendum A, Louisiana Amendment 2, Louisiana Amendment 5, Louisiana Amendment 6, New Jersey Question 2, and Virginia Question 2. Sales Tax a Arkansas Issue 1: The ballot measure continued an existing a 0.5% sales tax, with revenue dedicated to roads, highways, and bridges. Going into 2020, the tax was set to expire in 2023. Issue 1 had the support of Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R), and the campaign behind Issue 1 received financial support from Alice and Jim Walton. Tobacco a Colorado Proposition EE: The ballot measure increased the tax rate on cigarettes from 84 cents per pack to $2.64 per pack and the tax rate on tobacco products from 40% of the manufacturer's list price to 62% of the manufacturer's list price. The ballot measure created a tax on nicotine products, such as e-cigarettes, with scheduled increases over seven years to 62% of the manufacturer's list price. Revenue from the tax increases was dedicated to preschool, education, housing, and the General Fund. a Oregon Measure 108: The ballot measure increased the cigarette tax from $1.33 to $3.33 per pack. The ballot measure also taxed e-cigarettes and other nicotine inhalants at a rate of 65% of the wholesale sales price and cigars at 65% of the wholesale sales price (but not to exceed $1.00 per cigar). Measure 108 dedicated revenue from the tax increases to the Oregon Health Authority. Fees a Colorado Proposition 117: In 1992, the Colorado Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) Amendment defined government-owned firms that provide goods or services for a fee as enterprises. Examples of enterprises include state nursing homes, state lotteries, Colorado Correctional Industries, and College Assist. The ballot measure was designed to require voter approval of laws that create new enterprises should the enterprise's projected or actual revenue from fees and surcharges exceed $100 million within the first five years. TIF a Nebraska Amendment 2: The constitutional amendment increased the repayment period for tax increment financing from 15 to 20 years for areas where more than one-half of properties are designated as extremely blighted.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Alaska

Process in Alaska

In Alaska, the number of signatures required for an indirect initiated state statute is equal to 10 percent of the votes cast in the preceding gubernatorial election. Alaska also has a signature distribution requirement, which requires that signatures equal to 7 percent of the vote in the last general election must be collected in each of three-fourths of the 40 state House districts. Petitions are allowed to circulate for 365 days from the date the lieutenant governor issues petition booklets to be distributed for signature gathering. Signatures must be submitted 365 days after the lieutenant governor issued petition booklets to be distributed for signature gathering or before the legislative session begins, whichever comes first.

The requirements to get an indirectly initiated state statute certified for the 2020 ballot:

• Signatures: 28,501 valid signatures were required.
• Deadline: The deadline to submit signatures was 365 days after the lieutenant governor issued petition booklets to be distributed for signature gathering or before the legislative session began on January 21, 2020, whichever comes first.

In Alaska, when enough signatures are verified for an initiative, the initiative is not certified for the ballot until after "a legislative session has convened and adjourned." This gives the Legislature a timeframe to consider the proposal or similar legislation. The initiative is void when “an act of the legislature that is substantially the same as the proposed law was enacted after the petition had been filed, and before the date of the election," according to state law. Otherwise, the initiative is certified to appear on the ballot for the first statewide election 120 days after the legislature's adjournment.

Stages of this initiative

The campaign Vote Yes for Alaska's Fair Share filed the ballot initiative (Petition 19OGTX) with the lieutenant governor on August 16, 2019. Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer (R) approved the proposal for signature gathering on October 15, 2019.

On January 17, 2020, Vote Yes for Alaska's Fair Share filed 44,624 signatures with election officials. At least 28,501 (63.9 percent) of the submitted signatures need to be valid. Robin Brena, chairperson of Vote Yes for Alaska's Fair Share, said the campaign had collected enough signatures in 35 state House districts.

On February 28, 2020, the Alaska Division of Elections reported that 39,174 signatures were valid, surpassing the minimum number required.

The Alaska State Legislature had the option to approve the proposal or equivalent legislation before the end of this year's legislative session, which adjourned on May 20, 2020. Since neither the initiative nor equivalent legislation was approved, the proposal was set to appear on the ballot for the general election on November 3, 2020.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired Texas Petition Strategies and Advanced Micro Targeting to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $163,333.34 was spent to collect the 28,501 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $5.73.

Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share v. Meyer

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Did Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer write a true and impartial summary of the ballot initiative?
Court: Alaska Supreme Court (Filed in Alaska Superior Court)
Ruling: The Alaska Supreme Court dismissed the case, upholding the Superior Court's ruling in favor of Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share. The Superior Court ordered Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer to strike a sentence from the ballot summary.
Plaintiff(s): Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share	Defendant(s): Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer and Division of Elections
Plaintiff argument: The ballot language that Lt. Gov. Meyer wrote for the initiative is not true or impartial.	Defendant argument: Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share did not make a timely objection to the language and, therefore, the complaint should be dismissed.

  Source: Alaska Superior Court

On November 14, 2019, Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share filed a legal challenge to Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's petition language for the ballot initiative. The challenge was filed in the Alaska Superior Court. As of 2020, Alaska Statutes (AS) 15.45.180 required that ballot language "give a true and impartial summary of the proposed law." Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share argued that the lieutenant governor failed to follow the statute, writing language that was not true and impartial. "The Summary should be corrected to ensure Fair Share's constitutional and statutory rights associated with the initiative process are not compromised by Defendant Meyer, and the Fair Share Act is truly and impartially described on the ballot for voters," stated Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share.

On June 10, 2020, Judge William Morse ruled in favor of Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share, finding that the campaign made a timely objection and that Lt. Gov. Meyer's description of Section 7 of the ballot initiative was not impartial. Section 7 of the ballot initiative was written as follows:

“

Section 7, Public Records. All filings and supporting information provided by each producer to the Department relating to the calculation and payment of the taxes set forth in Sections 3 and 4 shall be a matter of public record.

”

The ballot summary that Lt. Gov. Meyer used to describe Section 7 was as follows:

“

The act would also make all filings and supporting information relating to the calculation and payment of the new taxes “a matter of public record.” This would mean the normal Public Records Act process would apply.

”

Judge Morse said, "By telling the public that section 7 would not only make all filings and supporting documents "a matter of public record," but also that "[t]his would mean the normal Public Records Act process would apply[,]" Meyer weighs in on the dispute over the meaning of Section 7. He does not reveal that there is a dispute over the meaning of "a matter of public record." He does not indicate that it is unclear whether the exceptions to disclosure of public records, contained in AS 40.25.120, might apply to some of the producers' filings. Instead, he places his finger on the scales and affirmatively states that section 7 does not mean or accomplish what its sponsors say was their intent or would be the effect of the initiative." Judge Morse ordered Lt. Gov. Meyer to delete the sentence "This would mean the normal Public Records Act process would apply" from the ballot summary.

Maria Bahr, an attorney for the state, responded to the ruling. She said, "We are disappointed that the court failed to see the straightforward accuracy of the sentence on public records, and its importance in informing voters of the effect of the changes that would be made by the initiative." The case was appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court, which upheld the superior court's ruling on August 26, 2020.

Resource Development Council for Alaska et al. v. Meyer

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Did Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share violate the law requiring that signature gatherers earn no more than $1.00 per signature?
Court: Alaska Supreme Court (Filed in Alaska Superior Court)
Ruling: Plaintiffs' interpretation of the $1.00-per-signature limit is correct; however, the limit violates the U.S. Constitution's protection of free speech.
Plaintiff(s): Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc., Alaska Trucking Association, Inc., Alaska Miners Associaiton, Inc., Associated General Contractors of Alaska, Alaska Chamber, and Alaska Support Industry Alliance	Defendant(s): Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer, Division of Elections, and Vote Yes for Alaska's Fair Share
Plaintiff argument: Vote Yes paid signature gatherers in excess of the $1.00-per-signature limit.	Defendant argument: Providing signature gatherers with salaries is not affected by the $1.00-per-signature limit.

  Source: Alaska Superior Court

On April 10, 2020, six business organizations filed a legal challenge to Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's (R) certification of certain signatures for the ballot initiative. Plaintiffs argued that Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share (Vote Yes) paid signature gatherers in excess of the legal maximum, which was $1.00 per signature. As of 2020, Alaska Statutes 15.45.110(c) read, "A circulator may not receive payment or agree to receive payment that is greater than $1 a signature, and a person or an organization may not pay or agree to pay an amount that is greater than $1 a signature, for the collection of signatures on a petition." Vote Yes hired petition-collection firm Advanced Micro Targeting, which offered signature gatherers $3,500 - $4,000 per month for 480 to 600 signatures per week.

Robin Brena, the chairperson of Vote Yes, responded that the law addressed paying circulators for each signature, not paying circulators salaries. He said, "It does not address any other form of payment to circulator. To state the obvious there is no bounty when petition circulators are paid by salary."

On July 16, 2020, Superior Court Judge Thomas A. Matthews dismissed the case. Judge Matthews agreed with the plaintiffs' (six business organizations) interpretation of the law, but stated that Alaska Statutes 15.45.110(c) was unconstitutional. "Petition circulation is core political speech because it involves interactive communication concerning political change, and First Amendment protection for such interaction is therefore at its zenith," wrote Judge Matthews. The Alaska Supreme Court upheld Judge Matthews' ruling on August 31, 2020.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Alaska

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in California.

How to cast a vote in Alaska

The information below covers regular voting policies in the state. Information may have not applied to the election on November 3, 2020, because of temporary changes in response to coronavirus. Click here to read about changes made for the 2020 elections. Poll times In Alaska, polling places are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. local time. Alaska is divided between the Alaska time zone and the Hawaii-Aleutian time zone. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote. Registration Check your voter registration status here. To register to vote in Alaska, each applicant must be a citizen of the United States, a resident of Alaska, and at least 18 years of age or within 90 days of their 18th birthday. An individual convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude may not register to vote until their voting rights have been restored. If registered to vote in another state, applicants must be willing to cancel that registration in order to vote in Alaska. To vote in Alaska, registered voters must be at least 18 years old and have been a resident of the state and election district for at least 30 days. Prospective voters can register online, with a paper form, or in person at a Division of Elections Office or a voter registration agency. The deadline to register or make changes to a registration is 30 days before an election. If submitting an application form by mail, fax, or email, the applicant must provide one of the following forms of identification either with his or her application or when voting for the first time: “ Current and valid photo identification Driver’s license Passport State identification card Birth certificate Hunting and Fishing license. ” Automatic registration Alaska automatically registers eligible individuals to vote when they apply for a Permanent Fund Dividend, unless they opt out. Online registration See also: Online voter registration Alaska has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website. Same-day registration Alaska allows same-day voter registration in presidential election years, but voters who do so can vote only for the offices of president and vice president. Residency requirements Alaska law requires 30 days of residency in the state and election district before a person may vote. According to the Division of Elections' website, "you are considered an Alaska resident if you reside in the state and intend to remain a resident or, if you temporarily leave the state, you have intention to return (Active military members, spouses or dependents are exempt from the intent to return requirement)." Verification of citizenship See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States Alaska does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. An individual applying to register to vote must attest that they are a U.S. citizen under penalty of perjury. All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment. Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. One state, Ohio, requires proof of citizenship only when registering to vote at a Bureau of Motor Vehicles facility. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters. Verifying your registration The site My Voter Information, run by the Alaska Department of Elections, allows residents to check their voter registration status online. Voter ID requirements Alaska requires voters to present non-photo identification while voting. The following were accepted forms of identification as of October 2025. Click here for the list of acceptable identification included in state statute to ensure you have the most current information. Voter ID card Driver’s license State ID Other photo ID Passport Hunting or fishing license If you do not have the one of the identifications listed above, you may present a current utility bill or paycheck, government check or bank statement or other government issued document. These documents must have your current residence address.

See also

2020 measures

• 2020 ballot measures
• Taxes on the ballot
• Natural resources on the ballot
• Energy on the ballot

Alaska

• Alaska ballot measures
• Alaska ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Alaska Initiative Petition 19OGTX (2020)

Support

• Vote Yes for Alaska's Fair Share campaign website
• Vote Yes for Alaska's Fair Share Facebook page
• Vote Yes for Alaska's Fair Share Twitter page

Opposition

• OneAlaska campaign website
• OneAlaska Facebook page
• OneAlaska Twitter page