Because of recent shifts in where people live in the state, some lawmakers feel the State Legislature needs to have more members due to lower populations in Southeast Alaska and in the western part of the state.   I don’t think that is a good enough reason to add to more members to the 40-member House of Representatives and the 20-member State Senate.

Yes, there are Legislators who continue to see a loss in population.  This means that their districts, when they are redistricted after the 2010 census, could see a loss in the number of lawmakers from there areas, like Southeast Alaska and in the western part of the state, too.  However, that doesn’t mean the state should add more lawmakers to the State Senate and to the House of Representatives.

The first argument against this comes from Washington, D.C.  I don’t see any Congressmen or Senators from the states that have lost population over the recent decades pushing for more members in Congress.  I haven’t seen an outcry by Alaskans to change the United States Constitution so that we have more than one member in the House.

The second argument against this proposal calls for keeping the same number of lawmakers in the more rural areas, while increasing the number of lawmakers mainly in the Anchorage, Fairbanks and Mat-Su areas.  This isn’t good for the rural areas of the state.  This is just good for the areas that gain more lawmakers, like Anchorage and the Mat-Su. 

Actually, I think this proposed constitutional amendment is being supported mainly by Legislators who may feel they could lose their seat, due to that loss in population.

The third argument against this proposal is cost.  For every lawmaker added, there is a salary, a salary for at least one assistant, the need to create an office, the need for more space in Juneau during the session, and on, and on, and on.

Let’s face it.  At a time when oil revenues are dropping, with no clue how to fix it from the many on the state level, the last thing Alaska needs to do is add more cost to the state government. 

The final argument against this is more doesn’t always mean better.  More lawmakers in Juneau mean more laws being proposed by more people.  More lawmakers mean more disagreements in spending the state’s money, which means more special sessions.  More lawmakers also mean more of an effort to return to a 120-day session, because of the need by more of these lawmakers to spend more time on so much more than Alaska doesn’t really need…………..more rules.

Think About it.

Filed under: Think About It by Joe Nicks