阿拉斯加州朱诺市——立法机构未能解决该州最具放射性的问题——居民应该从该州的石油财富基金中获得多少支票——引发了阿拉斯加公众的愤怒，这与政治活动人士10年一次的机会发生了冲突:选民有机会召开大会修改该州的宪法。

对长期恶化的石油检查问题的失望为寻求修改宪法以解决一系列热点问题的团体提供了机会，例如限制堕胎和改变法官遴选程序，反对者说这种方式可能会使这一过程更加党派化。

今年的政治动荡可能会把一个通常被忽视的投票问题变成一场围绕国家方向的高风险斗争。大会将开放阿拉斯加的基础文件进行任何形式的修改，反对者认为，在一个党派分歧严重、文化战争和由来自其他州的财大气粗的捐助者推动的竞选活动的时代，这是危险的。

谈论修改宪法“就像拿着打火机在炸药储藏室里走来走去。你最好知道你在做什么，”约翰·科格希尔说，他是一名保守派前州议员，他的父亲是阿拉斯加最初的制宪会议的代表之一。

阿拉斯加是今年秋天选民将决定是否召开大会审议宪法修正案的三个州之一。这个问题在密苏里州没有引起多少关注，到目前为止在新罕布什尔州也只引起了轻微的兴趣，在新罕布什尔州，一个反对新冠肺炎指令和限制的团体已经讨论过发起一场运动来倡导一个公约。该组织，重建NH，还没有说它可能会赞成什么修正案。

总共有14个州被要求举行定期选举，询问选民是否召开制宪会议。代表们通常可以自由提议修改——甚至是全新的宪法——然后再交给选民批准。

选民召集的州宪法会议越来越少了。自从1984年罗德岛选民最后一次授权投票以来，已经有30多个这样的投票问题失败了。

新罕布什尔州的选民自1982年以来就没有授权过。与会代表就100多项修正案进行了辩论，其中10项进入了投票环节。选民们通过了六项议案，包括要求立法机关每年开会一次而不是每隔一年开会一次的措施，以及确保残疾选民可以进入投票站的措施。

今天，这个国家更加分裂。

维克森林大学(Wake Forest University)研究这一主题的政治学教授约翰·迪南(John Dinan)说，“制宪会议一度被视为赋予人民权力和克服政府运作挑战的一种方式，但人们现在不再相信制宪会议会成功。”。"人们非常担心失控的大会或打开问题的潘多拉魔盒."

这就是阿拉斯加正在出现的情况，那里的一些团体在将于11月投票的问题上偏袒一方。

今年的投票将在美国最高法院预计年中做出的一项裁决之后进行，该裁决可能会严重削弱全国各地的堕胎权利。阿拉斯加最高法院将州宪法的隐私权解释为包括堕胎权，但许多保守派人士希望废除这种解释。

保守的阿拉斯加家庭委员会表示，它认为呼吁召开一次会议是其首要任务之一。它支持一项修正案，即宪法中没有任何内容可以被解释为保护堕胎权。该组织还支持与学校选择和司法选择程序改革相关的问题。

阿拉斯加州美国公民自由联盟临时执行主任苏珊·奥兰斯基说，该州现有的先例为阿拉斯加妇女“继续拥有生育选择权”提供了“相当重要的隔离”。但是她说她的组织关注召开会议的可能性。她说，大会有可能改变宪法，破坏这些保护措施。

阿拉斯加独立党(Alaskan Independence Party)主席鲍勃伯德(Bob Bird)是一名著名的大会倡导者，该党是该州三大公认的政党之一，认为自己是保守的共和党主义、民粹主义和自由意志主义的融合体。除此之外，伯德还敦促司法部门进行改革。

对大会持批评态度的人说，激烈的政治环境使得现在不是公开州宪法的时候，但伯德不同意:“如果我们没有这样的环境，它甚至不会被考虑。它会像过去一样被忽视。”

上一次这个问题在阿拉斯加进行投票是在2012年，投票者以近2比1的比例拒绝了召开大会的要求。

包括科格希尔在内的共和党前议员、民主党前市长和一名工会领袖加入了一个名为“捍卫我们的宪法”的组织，以反对召开大会。他们担心财大气粗的外部利益集团会试图影响这一过程，而商业利益集团可能会在这一过程结束后推迟在阿拉斯加的投资。

参与反对团体大会的民主党人布鲁斯·博特霍(Bruce Botelho)表示，“许多人只是普遍对政府感到愤怒，这可能是他们投票表达对政府不满的机会。”

支持者说，这种担心被夸大了，如果选民真的批准召开大会，尖锐分歧的问题不太可能走得太远。

类似的担忧阻止了联邦层面的制宪会议，几个共和党领导的州近年来提出了一种通过平衡预算修正案的方式。那些对制宪会议持谨慎态度的人普遍表示，他们担心集会有可能变成一场混战——例如，民主党人试图授权社会福利项目支出，而共和党人试图禁止堕胎或禁止任何类型的枪支管制。

密苏里大学金德宪政民主研究所主任贾斯汀·戴尔说，上个世纪成功的制宪会议得益于两党合作。

“我们现在处于非常紧张的党派斗争时期，”他说。“双方都有良好意愿的想法...很难知道我们是否能够做到这一点。”

State constitutional convention measures stoke partisan fear

JUNEAU, Alaska -- Simmering public anger in Alaska over the legislature’s failure to settle the state’s most radioactive issue — how big a check residents should receive from the state’s oil wealth fund — is colliding with a once-a-decade opportunity for political activists: The chance for voters to call a convention to amend the state’s constitution.

The frustration over the long-festering oil check question is providing a tail wind for groups seeking to change the constitution to address a range of hot button topics, such as restricting abortion and altering the process for selecting judges in a way that opponents say could make the process more partisan.

This year’s political turbulence could turn what is usually an overlooked ballot question into a high-stakes fight over the direction of the state. A convention would open Alaska’s foundational document to any type of revision, something opponents consider dangerous in an era of deep partisan divides, culture wars and campaigns fueled by deep-pocketed donors from out of state.

Talking about changing the constitution is “like walking around in a dynamite storage room with a lighter. You better know what you’re doing,” said John Coghill, a conservative former state lawmaker whose father was one of the delegates to Alaska’s original constitutional convention.

Alaska is one of three states where voters will decide this fall whether to call a convention to consider amendments to their constitution. The question has gained little attention in Missouri and has generated only mild interest so far in New Hampshire, where a group opposed to COVID-19 mandates and restrictions has discussed starting a campaign to advocate for a convention. That group, Rebuild NH, hasn’t yet said what amendments it might favor.

In all, 14 states are required to hold periodic elections asking voters whether to convene a constitutional convention. Delegates typically have free reign to propose revisions — or even entirely new constitutions — that would then go back to voters for ratification.

State constitutional conventions called by voters have become increasingly rare. More than 30 such ballot questions have failed since Rhode Island voters last authorized one in 1984.

Voters in New Hampshire haven’t authorized one since 1982. Delegates at that gathering debated more than 100 amendments, with 10 making it to the ballot. Voters approved six, including measures that required the legislature to meet annually instead of every other year and ensuring polling places would be accessible to disabled voters.

The country is more divided today.

“Whereas at one point a constitutional convention was seen as a way to empower the people and overcome challenges that they saw with the operation of government, the people now no longer have trust that constitutional conventions will work out,” said John Dinan, a political science professor at Wake Forest University who studies the topic. “There’s significant fear of runaway conventions or opening the Pandora’s box of issues.”

That’s what is emerging in Alaska, where some groups are taking sides on the question that will be on the November ballot.

This year’s vote will follow an expected mid-year decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case that could severely erode abortion rights across the country. The Alaska Supreme Court has interpreted the state constitution’s right to privacy as encompassing abortion rights, but many conservatives want to do away with that interpretation.

The conservative Alaska Family Council says it considers calling for a convention one of its top priorities. It supports an amendment saying nothing in the constitution may be construed as protecting a right to abortion. The group also is supporting issues related to school choice and changes to the judicial selection process.

Existing precedent in the state provides “pretty significant insulation” for Alaska women “to continue to have reproductive choice," said Susan Orlansky, interim executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska. But she said her group is concerned about the potential for a convention. A convention carries the risk of possible changes to the constitution that could undermine those protections, she said.

A prominent advocate for a convention is Bob Bird, chair of the Alaskan Independence Party, which is one of the three recognized political parties in the state and considers itself a blend of conservative Republicanism, populism and libertarianism. Among other things, Bird has urged changes to the judiciary.

Critics of a convention say the heated political environment makes this a bad time to open the state constitution, but Bird disagrees: “If we didn’t have this environment, it wouldn’t even be considered. It would be brushed off like it has (been) in the past.”

The last time the question was on the ballot in Alaska, in 2012, voters rejected calling for a convention by a nearly 2-to-1 margin.

Republican former lawmakers, including Coghill, Democratic former mayors and a union leader have joined as part of a group called Defend Our Constitution to oppose a convention. They worry that deep-pocketed outside interests will try to influence the process and that business interests might delay investments in Alaska while it plays out.

Bruce Botelho, a Democrat involved with the convention opposition group, said there are “a lot of people who are just generally angry at government and this may be their opportunity to cast a vote to express their frustrations at government.”

Supporters say the fears are overblown and that if voters do approve a convention, sharply divisive issues are unlikely to go far.

Similar concerns have prevented a constitutional convention at the federal level, which several Republican-led states have proposed in recent years as a way to pass a balanced budget amendment. Those wary of constitutional conventions generally say they worry about the possibility of the gatherings turning into free-for-alls — Democrats seeking to mandate spending for social welfare programs, for example, and Republicans trying to outlaw abortion or prohibit any type gun control.

Successful constitutional conventions during the last century were aided by bipartisan cooperation, said Justin Dyer, director of the Kinder Institute on Constitutional Democracy at the University of Missouri.

“We have a very tense partisan time right now,” he said. “The idea of having good will from both parties ... it’s hard to know if we would be able to do that or not.”

—