THE ALASKA CONSTITUTION: A REFERENCE GUIDE by Gerald A. McBeath. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1997. 280 pp. Cloth: $95.00
Reviewed by Donald J. Farole, Jr., Department of Political Science, University of North Carolina - Greensboro.
Gerald McBeath's book is another installment in a series of reference guides to U.S. state constitutions. The series, edited by G. Alan Tarr, reflects a growing scholarly interest in state constitutional law and politics. This increased attention most often is associated with the "new judicial federalism" – the reliance on state constitutions to protect rights and liberties in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s increased conservatism since roughly the early 1970s. Yet state constitutionalism entails much more than the new judicial federalism, and this book reveals a variety of interesting features of the Alaska Constitution. The book also provokes thought about scholarly research of state constitutional politics.
As a reference guide, THE ALASKA STATE CONSTITUTION is not meant to be read in full, but rather drawn on for specific needs. Like the other books in the series, it is divided into two primary parts. Part I briefly chronicles the history of the Alaska Constitution, from colonial rule and the statehood movement to the constitutional convention to the ratification of the constitution in 1956. While the history is fascinating and helps us understand Alaskan constitutional politics, the discussion, at times, is unnecessarily editorialized. The author’s account of the constitutional convention, for instance, reaches the following conclusion: "When put to the test, Alaska’s representatives excelled in th[e] task [of demonstrating political maturity], ignoring their individual political agendas for the common cause of statehood" (p. 20). Nevertheless, McBeath’s analysis does provide insight into the goals of the constitutional framers and the dilemmas they faced. Part II – the majority of the book – contains a detailed, section-by-section analysis of the constitution. Here, McBeath addresses relevant debates at the constitutional convention, although tends to focus (properly) on subsequent judicial interpretations which give meaning to each section. The book also contains an appendix showing the fate of proposed constitutional amendments, a bibliographic essay, table of cases, and index.
I suspect that few of us have been to Alaska, and may know little about Alaskan law and politics. Why should we care about this book? There are a number of features of Alaskan constitutional politics that may pique the interest of political scientists, academic lawyers, and legal historians. I will address a few of these features.
With a constitution younger than many readers of this review, Alaska is a case study in recent constitutional development. More than any state except Hawaii, Alaska was able to learn from the experiences of others states. The framers of Alaska’s document drew extensively on these experiences, and also modeled their constitution on the U.S. Constitution and National Municipal League’s Model State Constitution. As governor Tony Knowles mentions in his forward to the book, the Alaska Constitution was drafted and accepted during a period of progressive reform in state governments. This reform movement attempted, among other things, to shorten and simplify state constitutions, and to strengthen institutional powers to enable elected officials to govern more effectively. The Alaska Constitution reflects these concerns. The governor, for example, is among the most institutionally powerful in the nation. The constitution provides for a streamlined and efficient executive branch, and allows the governor to appoint all executive officials and to set the agenda when calling special sessions of the legislature.
Scholars interested in the new judicial federalism will find several areas of law in which the Alaska Constitution more protective than the U.S. Constitution. McBeath identifies some of these areas (p. 25), which include equal protection, due process, search and seizure, and the rights of the accused. This is a useful, although unfortunately not comprehensive, listing. Eleven pages later, for instance, we learn that the state supreme court struck down a city ordinance banning nude dancing as a content-based restriction in violation of the state free speech clause (Mickens v. City of Kodiak, 1982). As the author recognizes, the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed various restrictions on nude dancing (California v. LaRue, 1972).
Interestingly, Alaskan constitutional law is relatively well developed despite the fact that the state has no law school. Some scholars and judges have suggested that law school training in state constitutional law facilitates the evolution of a state law jurisprudence. Yet here is a state that, while lacking a ready breeding ground, nonetheless has attorneys and judges who have managed to develop a state constitutional jurisprudence, at least in some areas of rights and liberties.
On another matter, the constitution requires that, every ten years, voters be asked on the ballot whether they wish to convene a constitutional convention. Despite the ease with which this appears to facilitate constitutional change, the electorate has never convened a convention. In fact, there have been only 24 amendments to the Alaska Constitution, which is below the postwar average for the states. The lack of formal amendments makes constitutional change dependent largely on other mechanisms, particularly judicial interpretation. Finally, scholars interested in environmental politics will find that the constitution has an entire article devoted to natural (i.e., renewable and nonrenewable) resources. Given Alaska’s bounty of oil, fish, and other resources, it is of course no surprise that natural resources policy has been among the most salient issues in Alaskan politics and has found its way explicitly into the state constitution.
Overall, the book is well researched, well written, and appears to be comprehensive. Specific topics of interest can be found with little trouble, which is always a good feature of a reference guide. My only gripe – a minor one – is that there is no easy way to discern whether a particular constitutional provision is part of the original document, added by amendment, or is no longer in effect. Some constitutional law texts place amendments in italics, or strike through provisions that have been invalidated. A similar presentation would have added to the clarity of this book.
A fundamental question for political scientists concerns what to do with THE ALASKA STATE CONSTITUTION. How can this reference guide, chock-full of information on the history and meaning of one state’s constitution, aid scholarly research of state constitutional politics? The answer, of course, depends on our research questions and methods. As a guide to one state constitution, McBeath’s book might appear best suited to fostering case studies in constitutional politics. But while the book can stand on its own, it is also part of a larger series on state constitutions. Taken together, the books in the Greenwood Series can – and should – facilitate comparative research.
Some of the most important research in state constitutional politics (e.g., Lutz 1996) and judicial decision making (e.g., Brace and Hall 1995) in recent years relies on comparative, multi-state analysis to make significant theoretical advances. With an N of 50, the states are ideally suited for comparative studies in constitutional politics. These studies can alleviate limitations, including problems of generalizability, inherent in single state investigations. Of course, comparative analysis does not necessarily require statistical methods. Well-designed comparative case studies also help to advance our understanding of constitutional politics in the states. The point is that the Greenwood Series, by providing a ready and accessible source of information for each state constitution, can aid these endeavors.
Take one example. As I perused McBeath’s discussion of Article I, Alaska’s Declaration of Rights, it occurred to me that this is an easy and relatively comprehensive way to identify areas in which the Alaska Constitution is more protective than its federal counterpart. Once the series is complete, we should be able to gather such information for every state. For those who wish to explore the conditions under which state protections are more extensive than required by the federal Constitution, this is a very useful way to identify and code dependent variables. Of course, changing doctrine requires scholars to keep up to date; that’s why we have Westlaw and law review articles. But the Greenwood Series can be a great starting point for comparative research on the new judicial federalism and other aspects of state constitutional politics.
In the end, then, the ultimate success of the Greenwood Series will depend in part on what scholars do with this potentially valuable source of information. THE ALASKA STATE CONSTITUTION is a thorough and interesting guide to constitutional law and politics in Alaska. More important, it is part of a growing series that can contribute to a more complete understanding of American state constitutional politics, and constitutional politics more generally.
Brace, Paul and Melinda Gann Hall. 1995. "Studying Courts Comparatively: The View from the American States." POLITICAL RESEARCH QUARTERLY 48: 5-29.
CALIFORNIA V. LARUE, 409 U.S. 109 (1972)
Lutz, Donald S. 1996. "Patterns in the Amending of American State Constitutions." In CONSTITUTIONAL POLITICS IN THE STATES: CONTEMPORARY CONTROVERSIES AND HISTORICAL PATTERNS, ed. G. Alan Tarr. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
MICKENS V. CITY OF KODIAK, 640 P.2d 818 (Alaska 1982)