The Tennessee Plan and the Marston Plan were two competing visions for Alaska’s local government structure during the statehood debates and the Constitutional Convention of 1955-1956. These plans represented different approaches to balancing local autonomy, efficiency, and the unique geographic and demographic challenges of Alaska.
- The Tennessee Plan (Adopted Plan) – The Tennessee Plan, ultimately reflected in Article X of the Alaska Constitution, was modeled after Tennessee’s system of “strong home rule” and regional governance.
- Borough System Instead of Counties – Unlike other states, Alaska did not establish traditional counties. Instead, it created boroughs, which could be either organized (incorporated) or unorganized (state-administered).
- Local Government Flexibility – Encouraged the creation of home rule cities and boroughs, allowing communities to tailor their governance structure based on local needs.
- Minimal Local Government Mandates – Avoided unnecessary government layers by allowing rural areas without boroughs to remain under state oversight.
- Education and Services Support – Required boroughs to be responsible for local education and services while ensuring that state assistance remained available for remote regions.
✅ Strengths of the Tennessee Plan:
- Allowed for maximum local autonomy where desired.
- Prevented excessive government bureaucracy in low-population areas.
- Ensured state support for communities unable to form a borough.
❌ Challenges:
- The unorganized borough remained a long-term issue, requiring state oversight in areas without sufficient tax bases for self-governance.
- Some borough formations were delayed due to financial constraints and political debates.
- The Marston Plan (Alternative Proposal) – The Marston Plan, named after territorial planner and advocate George Marston, proposed a more structured and mandatory local government system, advocating for a system of counties similar to the Lower 48 states.
- Statewide County System – Would have divided Alaska into counties with mandated incorporation, avoiding large unorganized areas.
- Standardized Local Governance – Required a more uniform structure rather than the flexible approach in the Tennessee Plan.
- Greater Fiscal Responsibility on Local Governments – Would have shifted more financial responsibility for services to counties, reducing the state’s role in funding essential services.
✅ Strengths of the Marston Plan:
- Created consistent governance across the state.
- Ensured clear tax structures at the local level.
- Encouraged early borough formation instead of relying on state support.
❌ Challenges:
- Impractical for Rural Alaska – Many areas lacked the population or economy to sustain independent counties.
- Higher Local Taxes – Forced small communities to take on financial burdens they might not have been able to support.
- Less Flexibility – Did not account for Alaska’s vast, sparsely populated regions where traditional counties would be ineffective.
Key Differences Between the Plans
| Feature | Tennessee Plan (Adopted) | Marston Plan (Proposed) |
| Local Government Type | Boroughs (organized & unorganized) | Mandatory counties |
| Flexibility | High (home rule encouraged) | Low (standardized county structures) |
| State Support | High in unorganized areas | Reduced (counties responsible for own funding) |
| Rural Viability | More suited to remote communities | Impractical for sparsely populated areas |
| Tax Burden | Shared between local and state | Greater local tax burden |
The Tennessee Plan was ultimately chosen because it provided greater flexibility for Alaska’s unique geography and population distribution. The Marston Plan, while more structured, was seen as too rigid and unworkable for Alaska’s vast, low-population regions. The borough system allowed local governments to form when viable while ensuring the state still provided services in unincorporated areas.
Experience and Evaluation of Alternative
The Tennessee Plan’s borough system—where organized boroughs provide local governance and the state administers the unorganized borough—has led to both advantages and long-standing challenges.
Where the Tennessee Plan Has Been Successful
- Local Autonomy and Flexibility – The plan allowed communities with strong economic bases (like Anchorage, Juneau, and Fairbanks) to form organized boroughs tailored to their needs. Home rule cities have been able to govern efficiently without excessive state intervention.
- Efficient State Oversight for Remote Areas – In regions where a borough was not financially viable, the unorganized borough model allowed state funding to support education and essential services. This prevented rural communities from being forced into self-funded counties they couldn’t afford.
- Avoided Unnecessary Bureaucracy – Instead of imposing county governments across the state, the Tennessee Plan ensured that organized governance only emerged where viable. This prevented wasteful government structures in areas with minimal populations.
Challenges of the Tennessee Plan
- The Unorganized Borough Dilemma – The unorganized borough remains one of Alaska’s biggest governance challenges. With no local government, services like education, law enforcement, and infrastructure fall to the state, creating a fiscal strain on state resources. Critics argue this allows some communities to benefit from services without contributing local taxes (which might have been avoided under the Marston Plan).
- Borough Formation Has Been Inconsistent – Some areas that arguably should have boroughs (e.g., parts of the Mat-Su Valley, Southeast Alaska) have resisted incorporation due to concerns about taxation. The lack of a uniform system has created disparities in service funding and taxation.
- Financial Instability in Some Boroughs – Some boroughs have struggled financially (e.g., Haines, Wrangell) due to economic shifts. Unlike the Marston Plan’s county model, which would have mandated local taxation, boroughs today have struggled to sustain themselves, leading to debates about dissolving borough governments.
What Would Be Different Under the Marston Plan?
If Alaska had adopted the Marston Plan, some major differences would be evident today.
Potential Improvements Under the Marston Plan
- No Unorganized Borough – Every part of the state would have a local government structure, meaning there would be no large regions without borough (county) oversight. This would prevent some communities from receiving state-funded services without local taxation.
- More Local Revenue Generation – Instead of relying on state subsidies for rural areas, each county would have been responsible for generating its own revenue. This could have reduced the state’s financial burden, forcing local governments to be more self-sufficient.
- More Consistency in Service Delivery – Education, public safety, and infrastructure funding would have been locally managed rather than relying on the state to fill in the gaps. This could have prevented uneven service distribution between boroughs and unorganized areas.
Potential Problems Under the Marston Plan
- Counties Would Have Struggled to Sustain Themselves – Many areas lack a sufficient tax base to fund local services. If forced into countyhood, they might have been unable to provide essential services, leading to higher property taxes or economic decline in struggling regions.
- Over-Governance and Bureaucracy – Establishing mandatory counties might have created inefficient or unnecessary government layers in areas that didn’t need or want them. Some counties might have been poorly managed or underfunded, leading to frequent financial crises.
- Greater Resistance to Government Oversight – Many rural Alaskans prefer minimal government involvement. A forced county system might have led to greater political conflict and resistance, whereas the Tennessee Plan allowed boroughs to form organically.
Final Comparison: Tennessee Plan vs. Marston Plan Today
| Factor | Tennessee Plan (Actual) | Marston Plan (Hypothetical) |
| Unorganized Areas | Exists, creating service funding challenges | Would not exist, but some counties might struggle financially |
| Borough/County Formation | Voluntary (leading to inconsistencies) | Mandatory (ensuring uniformity but with financial risks) |
| State’s Role in Local Services | High, especially in unorganized boroughs | Lower, as counties would manage their own services |
| Fiscal Burden | State covers many rural costs | Counties responsible for local taxation |
| Local Autonomy | High, home rule boroughs can govern freely | Lower, counties would follow a standardized system |
| Service Disparities | Exists, as unorganized boroughs rely on state | More consistent, but some counties may be underfunded |
Conclusion: A Mixed Outcome
- The Tennessee Plan has been more flexible and adapted better to Alaska’s unique challenges, but it has created long-term issues, especially regarding the unorganized borough and uneven taxation.
- The Marston Plan might have solved funding problems and ensured all communities had local governance, but it would have forced some areas into unsustainable local taxation and added government bureaucracy.