Pubdate: Wed, 29 Sep 2004
Source: Anchorage Daily News (AK)
Copyright: 2004 The Anchorage Daily News
Contact:  http://www.adn.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/18
Cited: Measure 2 http://www.yeson2alaska.com/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/marijuana+initiative
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)

Not So Fast

BALLOT LANGUAGE RAISES EYEBROWS

Lt. Gov. Loren Leman has taken subtle but significant liberties in
writing descriptions of the ballot measures that voters will decide in
November.

Advocates of Ballot Measure 4, to fill U.S. Senate vacancies only by
special election, have asked a court to order the lieutenant governor
to write a more neutral description of the proposal. And with good
reason. His description says the measure would "leave Alaska without
full representation in the Senate" while a vacancy is filled. That is
clearly an advocacy statement that casts the measure in a negative
light.

Measure 4 is not the only one where the wordsmithing has a whiff of
prejudice. Ballot Measure 2 would legalize, tax and regulate
marijuana. Lt. Gov. Leman could have used the same description the
state approved when it printed the petition booklets that signature
collectors use. Instead, he rewrote portions with a pejorative twist.

The petition booklets say, "State law could not stop doctors from
prescribing marijuana. ... The bill would not nullify laws regulating
marijuana use by minors."

Lt. Gov. Leman instead chose to highlight the remote chance that a
child might be able to get a medical marijuana prescription. Measure
2, he writes, "removes all existing state restrictions on prescription
of marijuana by a doctor for all patients, including children." That
is both true and prejudicial. Raising the specter that Measure 2 would
let children get marijuana is unnecessary editorializing.

Measure 3, to outlaw bear baiting, also gets a subtle editorializing
touch. The first sentence is fine: "This bill would make it illegal
for a person to bait or intentionally feed a bear to hunt, photograph
or view a bear." The problem is the second sentence, which attempts to
explain the legal definition of "baiting or intentionally feeding."

Lt. Gov. Leman's version says that a person could not "use any item or
substance, including food or other edible matter to entice a bear into
an area or to stay in an area."

This clumsy, semilegalistic version leaves out a key word, helping sow
confusion about whether it could apply when a bear gets into people's
garbage or bird feeder. It is illegal baiting, according to the
proposed legislation, only if a person "intentionally" uses food or
other edibles to entice a bear.

The confusing omission of the word "intentionally" fits with the
rhetoric being used by opponents of Measure 3. They attack the measure
with claims that it could apply when a bear raids somebody's bird
feeder. It doesn't -- unless people set out a bird feeder specifically
to attract a bear. The argument is an inflammatory rhetorical distortion.

The lieutenant governor's confusing sentence describing Measure 3
simply isn't necessary. It doesn't tell voters anything they wouldn't
know from reading the simple, clear description in the first sentence.

There's an easy way to avoid these disputes about how the lieutenant
governor describes ballot measures for voters: Use the
100-word-or-less description that appears on the signature booklets.
That wording is negotiated with the initiative sponsors to describe a
proposal fairly. It is the wording people see when they agree to sign
so the measure can be put on the ballot. It is the wording voters
should see when they step inside the voting booth.

BOTTOM LINE: Editorial shadings, even subtle ones, don't belong in
ballot language. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake