The latest radio ad from "Alaskans Against the Mining Shutdown" surprised me for two reasons. First, that they're still trying to persuade the public. That could mean they aren't 100% confident that the state Supreme Court will throw out the Clean Water Initiative. There are now two conflicting rulings on whether the initiative can constitutionally restrict water use.
Second, I'm surprised because the ad uses an argument I've never heard before: "The initiatives were written behind closed doors with no public hearings or input." Right. Just like every other ballot initiative. Basically, this is an argument against any initiative, which is why I'm surprised I've never heard it deployed before.
That's not to say the argument isn't valid. It's worth debating -- more than just a 2 second mention in a radio ad. If the argument is valid, though, you'd have to toss out the United States Constitution, which was written behind closed doors without public input.
The ad declares as "fact" that "the initiatives would stop any new, large mining projects in Alaska." This seems to contradict what developers have said about the Pebble Mine, that it could be done within the bounds of environmental safety. They go on: "...and force the shutdown of existing mines." That would be an opinion, not a fact.
UPDATE: While the Clean Water Initiatives have not had hearings, a bill in the legislature that would do basically the same thing did indeed have hearings last year. Furthermore, if Alaskans Against the Mining Shutdown would like to propose a way to subject ballot initiatives to public hearings, I'd be glad to hear it. Would it be before the petitions are certified? After? The idea isn't so crazy, only it's not being mentioned as a serious proposal; it's being used to discredit initiatives altogether.
Second, I'm surprised because the ad uses an argument I've never heard before: "The initiatives were written behind closed doors with no public hearings or input." Right. Just like every other ballot initiative. Basically, this is an argument against any initiative, which is why I'm surprised I've never heard it deployed before.
That's not to say the argument isn't valid. It's worth debating -- more than just a 2 second mention in a radio ad. If the argument is valid, though, you'd have to toss out the United States Constitution, which was written behind closed doors without public input.
The ad declares as "fact" that "the initiatives would stop any new, large mining projects in Alaska." This seems to contradict what developers have said about the Pebble Mine, that it could be done within the bounds of environmental safety. They go on: "...and force the shutdown of existing mines." That would be an opinion, not a fact.
UPDATE: While the Clean Water Initiatives have not had hearings, a bill in the legislature that would do basically the same thing did indeed have hearings last year. Furthermore, if Alaskans Against the Mining Shutdown would like to propose a way to subject ballot initiatives to public hearings, I'd be glad to hear it. Would it be before the petitions are certified? After? The idea isn't so crazy, only it's not being mentioned as a serious proposal; it's being used to discredit initiatives altogether.
