Alaska — Measure 7 (Continuation, 1998)

Alaska voters approved Measure 7 (1998), reflecting continued application of the ballot-instruction system originally adopted in 1996 (Ballot Measure 9).

The system operates at the level of ballot presentation rather than eligibility, communicating candidate positions without altering who may hold office. This distinguishes ballot-instruction regimes from eligibility-based term-limit systems, which determine whether service may continue over time.

The measure maintained the same informational architecture, combining voter instruction with ballot-label disclosures tied to candidate positions on congressional term limits. It did not introduce a new eligibility framework, ballot-access restriction, or structural modification.

Classification

Ballot-Instruction Regime (Indirect · Informational Signaling · Office-Specific)
(continuation of 1996 system)

Structural Status

Architecture: unchanged
Mechanism: unchanged
Legal posture: unchanged (later rendered unenforceable under Cook v. Gralike)

Relationship to 1996 Measure

→ 1996 (Ballot Measure 9)

The 1998 measure reflects continuation of the ballot-instruction system rather than the introduction of a new design.

Structural Significance

Alaska illustrates multi-cycle persistence of a ballot-instruction regime within the 1996–2000 phase without architectural change.

Cross-References

→ Ballot Instruction Phase (1996–2000)
→ Worked Example — Cook v. Gralike, (2001)
→ Framework
→ FAQs
→ Case Library
→ Rotation Logic