Alaska — Measure 4 (1996)

Overview

Alaska voters adopted Measure 4 (1996) establishing a system of voter instruction directing Members of Congress to support a constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits.

The measure included provisions authorizing informational ballot statements identifying candidates who declined to support the voter instruction.

The measure formed part of the ballot-instruction phase of congressional term-limits reform that followed U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995).

Measure Identification

• Measure name: Measure 4

• Year: 1996

• Adoption method: Citizen initiative

• Election date: November 5, 1996

• Result: Approved

Ballot Language

Measure 4 instructed Alaska’s Members of Congress to support a constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits.

The proposed amendment specified limits of:

• three terms for Members of the House of Representatives

• two terms for Members of the Senate

Institutional Architecture

Voter Instruction Mechanism

The measure instructed Alaska’s congressional delegation to support a constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits.

The instruction expressed the position of Alaska voters regarding the proposed amendment.

Ballot Information Architecture

Measure 4 authorized informational statements to appear on election ballots identifying candidates who did not support the voter instruction concerning congressional term limits.

These informational statements were intended to communicate candidate positions regarding the proposed amendment.

Candidate Declaration / Pledge Mechanism

Candidates could declare whether they supported the proposed constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits.

Candidates declining to support the instruction could be identified through informational ballot statements.

Election Administration

Ballot Implementation

Following adoption of Measure 4, Alaska election officials were authorized to implement informational ballot statements identifying candidates who declined to support the voter instruction.

Administrative History

The informational statement system existed within Alaska law following adoption of the measure until similar systems were later affected by federal court decisions concerning ballot informational statements related to congressional elections.

Litigation History

No major independent litigation specific to Alaska’s measure produced a Supreme Court decision.

However, the legal environment surrounding ballot informational statements was affected by litigation in other states culminating in Cook v. Gralike (2001).

Relationship to Cook v. Gralike (2001)

The Supreme Court’s decision in Cook v. Gralike addressed ballot informational statements attached to candidate names in federal elections.

Because Alaska’s measure authorized similar informational statements concerning candidate support for term limits, the decision affected the broader legal viability of such systems.

Institutional Design Observations

Alaska’s Measure 4 illustrates the instruction + ballot informational statement architecture widely used in the 1996 ballot instruction initiatives.

The measure combined voter instruction to Members of Congress with informational ballot statements identifying candidates who declined to support the proposed amendment.

Sources

• Alaska Division of Elections — Measure 4 (1996) ballot materials and election records
  https://www.elections.alaska.gov/

• Alaska Division of Elections — 1996 General Election Results
  https://www.elections.alaska.gov/results/

• Ballotpedia — Alaska Congressional Term Limits Instruction Initiative (Measure 4, 1996)
  https://ballotpedia.org/Alaska_Congressional_Term_Limits_Instruction_Initiative,_Measure_4_(1996)

• Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510 (2001)
  https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/510/