OPINION: We must protect Alaska’s fundamental right to privacy

A good constitution protects the fundamental rights of every citizen and limits the government’s power. Our state has a long-established tradition of giving distinct meaning to the Alaska Constitution, which often provides more protection for individual freedom than the U.S. Constitution. Protecting individual rights was key to the voters’ decision to amend the Alaska Constitution in 1972 to protect the right to privacy.

Prior to 1972, most state courts viewed the right to privacy a matter of federal protection that states routinely did not address. While our delegates discussed the potential for government interference with a citizen’s privacy, the Alaska Constitutional Convention did not include a specific right of privacy because the rights were safeguarded by the equal protection guarantees and the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. In 1972, however, prompted by fear of the misuse of computerized information systems, the Legislature approved Senate Joint Resolution 68 and asked Alaska voters whether to amend the Alaska Constitution to establish the right of privacy.

Gov. William Egan supported SJR 68: “I have long shared the concern … that the right of privacy be given more explicit recognition in the fundamental law of our State … In a society where the forms of social, economic, and political organization have become increasingly comprehensive, impersonal, and automated, specific recitation of the right to privacy has become increasingly pertinent to the preservation of our way of life.”

The House and Senate both approved SJR 68 by the required two-thirds super majority — the House voted 39-1, and the Senate unanimously concurred with the House — thus presenting the question to Alaska voters. SJR 68 states: “The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed. The Legislature shall implement this section.” In August 1972, Alaskans overwhelmingly approved Ballot Measure 3, as proposed by SJR 68: 45,539, or 86% for and 7,303, or 14% against — and the right to privacy under Article I, Section 22 became a specifically enumerated, fundamental right under the Alaska Constitution.

The right to privacy protects personal privacy and dignity against unwarranted intrusions by the government. It protects the right to personal autonomy. The first Alaska Supreme Court decision to apply Alaska’s right of privacy (Ravin v. State, 1975) upheld the constitutional right of individuals to use marijuana in their homes. In his concurring opinion, Justice Boochever noted that federal privacy law was unsettled and it was appropriate for the Alaska Supreme Court to independently apply Alaska’s right to privacy: “since the citizens of Alaska, with their strong emphasis on individual liberty, enacted an amendment to the Alaska Constitution expressly providing for a right to privacy not found in the United States Constitution, it can only be concluded that the right is broader in scope than that of the Federal Constitution.”

The Alaska Supreme Court has consistently applied Alaska’s right to privacy to protect health care privacy, including access to abortion (Valley Hosp. Assoc., Inc. v. Mat-Su Coalition for Choice, 1997). Medical care decisions are personal, private decisions that must be left for individuals and families to decide.

Every 10 years, our constitution requires that voters decide whether to call a constitutional convention. For the past 50 years, Alaskans have always voted against calling a constitutional convention, and our constitution remains a model for other states. Without holding a constitutional convention, Alaskans have approved 28 constitutional amendments and rejected 12 proposed amendments. A constitutional convention could be a first step toward restricting Alaska’s right to privacy and directly banning or limiting access to essential reproductive health care. Restricting these rights is against our Alaska values of freedom, self-determination and personal privacy.

Alaska history on the right to privacy reflects both our state’s independence and our strong tradition of protecting individual liberties. In the November election, the most important step to protecting Alaska’s right to privacy is to vote no on whether to call a constitutional convention.

Rep. Matt Claman represents West Anchorage in the Alaska House of Representatives. He is a candidate for State Senate.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.