I Was Betrayed—Maybe You Were Too

If you want to fight crime, protect the dividend and end Alaska’s ongoing recession, it’s important to know where to invest your time and money—and where not to. Unfortunately, some of us learn that lesson the hard way. I hope you will do better.

When legislators returned from Juneau this summer, I was asked to join all Mat-Su Republican legislators and others in co-hosting a fundraiser. I agreed. The fundraiser was to a specific purpose—to win a Republican Majority in the Alaska State House of Representatives. Invitations to the event bore my name and the name of thirteen other House Republican legislators, with funds going to the Republican House Majority Fund. Counting all fundraising efforts, the Alaska Republican Party took in more than $10,000 that day.

I agreed to allow my name to be used. I now regret that decision. Here’s why:

I recently learned what happened to some of the money raised that day. It went to defeat some of the very conservatives I am supporting and who will actually change things in Juneau. If you gave to the Republican Party expecting the money to help Republicans win back a majority in the house, you may be in for a rude awakening.

Of the nearly $50,000 the Republican Party recently gave to candidates in the legislature, some have gone to the type of races you would expect. But more than half went to candidates who are currently competing with other Republican candidates in the August 21st election, some of whom will have no opponent after that. No opposition. Their only opposition is a new Republican candidate who has filed to serve in the legislature.

In other words, the money spent in those races will have absolutely no impact on whether Republicans or Democrats or independents win a majority in the house or the senate. The funds are being spent instead to help some Republican legislators hold on to their seats against new Republican candidates.

Unfortunately, I noticed the same has already taken place in the race for Lieutenant Governor, with the Republican Party already giving $8,000 to a former legislator running against other Republican candidates. Some may excuse these donations by saying that incumbents and past legislators are stronger candidates to win office. Perhaps in some cases. Certainly not in others.

If an incumbent needs help from their party to beat a new candidate in the primary, perhaps that particular incumbent isn’t one of the strong ones. Does anyone truly believe that simply supporting incumbents in all races will help us fight crime? Protect the dividend? Fix the economy? Surely not.

To cite but one example, I have talked to no one who believes that incumbent legislator Charisse Millett will be a more formidable candidate in the general election than her Republican opponent. That is not to say whether she or her opponent will be better for Alaska, but it is a race in a district that may actually impact whether Republican legislators have a majority in the legislature. Even so, she received $4,000 from the party to help her beat her Republican opponent in next week’s election. Why?

The answer to that question is straight forward, and it’s the same whether you are talking about political parties or other nonprofit groups. It is the way it is today because donors to that particular fund have not required better use of their donations. Hopefully, with more information available to them, they will.

I know where my constituents stand on this issue. Time and again they have told me that they don’t want the political parties stepping in and putting their finger on the scale of who wins in a primary election. They want to decide for themselves. I think it makes for good policy for parties to be neutral in most primary elections. Yes, there are exceptions, but I and many others would like to see the default be neutrality rather than simply supporting whoever the incumbent happens to be.

Will it get us to stronger and safer communities, 100% of our dividend, and a stronger economy? That’s what I want to know. I look forward to a day when the Republican House Majority Fund, and others like it, are used as they are supposed to be used, to further the values of the Republican Platform. That is something I can get excited about. The other stuff, not so much.

On a related topic, some have questioned whether legislators should be allowed to hold leadership positions in political groups and funds. I think the question mistakes the reality of what takes place.

Incumbents already have funds they can turn to, like the Majority Funds that each party keeps. The question isn’t whether these types of funds will exist, they always will. The only question is whether there will be funds available for new candidates who aren’t already backed by one of the parties.

Rep. David Eastman has served in the Alaska State House representing the Mat-Su since 2017; He ran on a platform of fighting for genuine conservative reform, fiscally and socially, and remains committed to delivering on that promise.

Bag Ban Unintended Consequences: Wasilla Walmart Runs Out of Plastic Bags

Walmart in Wasilla ran out of plastic bags today. It was bad. Real bad.

Not the outlawed, regular plastic bags. The five times heavier, now legally encouraged, plastic bags.

Walmart adds a 10 cent charge for every bag, but customers still need them, and today they ran out.

How does Walmart run out? Well, 100 lbs. of bags now has 80% less capacity than the old bags. If you are Walmart, instead of one box of plastic bags, you now need to order five boxes of plastic bags, for the same amount of groceries.

Yes, our elected representatives did this to us.

And no, we don't make plastic bags in Alaska. They have to be transported up from out of state. And bigger, heavier bags means more in manufacturing costs and higher shipping costs to get them up to Alaska.

And will anyone reuse the new plastic bags that wasn't already going to reuse the old ones? Studies say no.

It just now costs more to get the same amount of groceries in a thicker one-use plastic bag.

If there's a plastic bag lobby out there, kudos guys. You scored big time on this one.

We Are Living with the Consequences of Legislators Who Fought Against Returning Justice and Reason to our Criminal Justice System

Last year, in response to the terrible fallout my constituents were experiencing from the passage of SB91, I proposed two common sense fixes to SB91.

The first amendment I proposed was to require the state to consider a person's out of state criminal convictions before automatically deeming them "low-risk" and immediately releasing them from custody.

You can read a copy of the amendment here: https://bit.ly/2Kw2ToN

You can listen to the debate here: https://bit.ly/2rlqqAa

As you can see above, that amendment was rejected by a majority of legislators.

We are now being told that the feds need to intervene because the state accidentally created a "loophole": http://www.ktva.com/story/38023607/feds-prosecuting-cases-that-fall-into-pretrial-loophole

Listen to the debate. The decision by the legislators listed here was no accident. It was a deliberate policy decision. Listen to the debate. The legislator leading the opposition to the amendment argued that we needed to trust the "expert" who had created this wonderful risk assessment tool. He argued that if we asked about a criminal's out of state criminal convictions we would be undermining the entire process, putting public safety at risk. Legislators voted to implement a risk assessment tool that was fundamentally broken before it was ever used.

Public safety is at risk today because legislators refused to fix this problem last year; before today's utterly inadequate risk assessment tool went into affect.

The legislature has been in session for more than 120 days since this vote was taken, while the consequences of this decision continue to be visited upon innocent Alaskans in all parts of our state.

This must end. SB91 failed, and it must now be placed on the ashbin of history and fully repealed.

Day 106: Will Legislators Throw a Last Minute Bone to Crime-Plagued Alaskan Voters?

SB91 was signed into law in 2016. Now, two years later, we can see its effects everywhere. The Palmer Prison, shown above, was closed in 2016 as a direct consequence of SB91. Crime rates are up, but the number of inmates is down.

This is what happens when politicians subscribe to the notion that "Our Entire Criminal Justice System is Inherently Discriminatory" and racist, and that the only way to make up for this is to release inmates back into the society that did them so much wrong:

Yet despite the utter failure of SB91 to protect Alaskans and their property, the Alaska House of Representatives has done virtually nothing this year to reverse course.

The only bill to pass the House this year that even touches on crime relief was an increase in arrest authority for one specific crime (low level assault) in one specific type of facility (healthcare facilities). And that particular bill had every appearance of being politically motivated by legislators needing to distances themselves from SB91 without actually doing anything meaningful to reverse course on it, or to protect all of the other victims of low level assault brought about by SB91.

As legislators begin to look ahead to elections in August, will they realize that over the course of this entire year they have done nothing to reduce crime? Will the legislature now finally acknowledge that SB91 was a failure, and that we can no longer sit by waiting for it to "work"?

Alaskans are waiting for an answer.

Day 105: Cruise Ships Begin to Arrive in Juneau While Legislature Cancels Key Meeting

My family and I were able to see the first cruise ship to arrive in Juneau yesterday morning. With tourist season now upon us, the capital was awash in visitors yesterday. Unfortunately, very few of them were Alaskans.

Meanwhile, the SB26 Conference Committee, which was supposed to meet last Saturday, punted to Monday. But when Monday arrived, they simply cancelled the meeting outright. As of today, they have not announced another meeting.

SB26 is the bill which will redefine the calculation of the Permanent Fund Dividend, cutting the dividend permanently. In both versions of the bill, the government plans to redistribute most of the funds coming into the Permanent Fund Earnings Reserve from the dividend to instead fund the ballooning costs of an out of control state budget, which legislators decided this year is not yet large enough and needs further increases.

Day 94: 31 legislators voted yesterday to use students and teachers as hostages in the war against the PFD

Yesterday, the legislature approved $1.3 Billion in education funding beginning July 1, 2019.

However, they made sure that schools won't receive a single dollar of that money until they first convince their legislators to pass a separate bill, which attacks and permanently transforms the PFD, giving up to 75% of future permanent fund earning to government, and as little as 25% to future dividends.

The House proposed a more "modest" arrangement, taking only 67% of permanent fund earnings, and leaving 33% to be available for dividends, but effectively adding both a new state sales tax and a new state income tax in exchange.

Does it really need to be said that students and teachers shouldn't be used as human shields in your attack on the PFD? Yes, I guess it does.

There are 20 days left until we reach the Point of No Return in this legislative session.

Note: After May 9th, the people's right to vote down a bad law disappears for the next two and a half years, until the August 18, 2020 election.

Day 93: Did the Legislature Really Just Daisy-Chain Education Funding to a 75% PFD cut? Yes. They did.

There's Alaskan innovation, and then there's stupidity. And what the legislature did today was definitely not innovation.

The Legislature ran out of power last year to permanently spend 75% of future PFD/ERA funds on state government, so today they passed another law putting in place the fourth power strip in the daisy-chain that will allow them to finally stick their hands permanently in the permanent fund cookie jar.

This morning, the legislature passed HB287, which holds $1.3 Billion of education funding hostage until legislators agree to permanently divert up to 75% of the PFD/ERA to fund state government this year and every year going forward.

The education funding for the fiscal year starting next summer (2019) is now being held hostage until legislators pass SB26, which permanently changes the PFD and, in the version of SB26 passed by the house, SB26 itself is also held hostage until the legislature increases taxes on the oil industry, and then also increases statewide taxes roughly the same amount as both the governor's proposed 3% sales tax and also his proposed statewide income tax combined.

Yes, our state constitution limits every bill to one subject only, I'm sure to prevent messes like this from happening, but the legislature is moving ahead with this because the legislature's lawyers think they have found a way around that particular part of the constitution because of a technicality. 

Also, with the legislature now using education fund to leverage the passage of SB26, it is important to remember that if the legislature remains in session on May 10th, the people will automatically lose the right to immediately vote down any laws passed by the legislature in 2018.

As mentioned earlier, if the legislature is in session for any portion of May 10th, the right to vote against any controversial laws like SB26 will be delayed by more than two years, until the August 2020 election.

With this in mind, I proposed a measure during this morning's floor session to make clear to the public that we would not be passing any controversial laws like SB26 and denying the people the right to vote on them through a referendum.

Democrat leadership immediately moved to bury the measure in committee, from which it will never again see the light of day.

Those who supported Democrat leadership are shown in green below. Those who supported consideration of the motion to protect the people's right to a referendum are shown in red.

Day 92: Rushing Bad Bills through the Legislature Because We Can

While the end of the 90-Day session went largely unremarked in Juneau over the weekend, the fact that we are so late in the session is, predictably, now being used as an excuse to rush bad bills through the legislative process while we continue to remain in Juneau.

I say "excuse", because this excuse is being used by legislators to avoid public testimony and public criticism on bills for which there is no obvious or urgent need, and to circumvent the normal vetting that a bill is expected to receive.

Don't look behind the curtain folks. Just know that exceeding the 90-Day Session has become a critical part of the game, because if we ended before 90 days, there are a good many bad bills that would never make it through the process, and legislators know this long in advance.

Accordingly, legislators have become dependent on exceeding the 90-Day deadline each year, in order to use the legislature's own tardiness as an excuse to bypass the normal vetting process their bills would otherwise have to survive.

Despite the spin, there continues to be no sense of urgency in Juneau today. House legislators assembled to conduct business today, but the entire session lasted less than 50 minutes, and half of that time was spent by the powers that be simply trying to prevent my being able to speak against the motion to rush things through. The comedy never ends. (Note: Those watching this morning's floor session will doubtless be wondering what it was they spent half the session trying to keep me from saying. In anticipation of questions, I have included a brief summary at the very bottom of this article.)

On Friday night, the policy requiring normal public notice for committee meetings was officially set aside, permitting committee meetings to now be scheduled with "at least 24 hours notice". Those who have watched this movie before will remember that when legislators are only required to give 24-hours notice, that rapidly devolves into "a few hours", resulting in huge bills being laid in front of legislators who have first laid eyes on the bills only minutes before the committee meeting at which they are to vote on the bill. (See Media Coverage on this practice)

This, too, is part of how things "get done" in Juneau. It has become a critical part of a process designed to let bad bills bypass the normal checks designed to stop them, and let legislators off the hook afterwards. In the immortal words of Nancy Pelosi, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Another important piece of this charade is the "committee bill". Theoretically, no new bills are allowed to be proposed after February 19th. However, there is an exception for bills that have such overwhelming support that an entire committee wants to put their support behind it. In such cases, the committee becomes the sponsor of the new bill instead of an individual legislator.

However, what this really means is that "a majority" of the committee supports the bill, and in actual practice, what it means is that only one member of the committee, the chairman, may support the bill. To pull a page from Rep. Paul Seaton's "Committee of One" handbook, it's just a whole lot easier for one person to write a bill by themselves. The result: other members of the committee may only find out what is in the bill at the time they are voting on it (or maybe a little while after).

This Morning

The above video of this morning's floor session begins at 16:16 with a motion to have HB333 bypass the Judiciary Committee and move straight to the House Floor. I objected. After a twenty minute pause, the house resumes again at 37:30, and the motion is recrafted in such a way that I was prohibited from speaking to my objection.

My objection was simply this:

House Bill 333 (to create local bans on using phones in vehicles) was referred to only two committees (Community & Regional Affairs, and Judiciary).

A member of the first committee had requested that the bill be amended in the Judiciary Committee, and the bill was passed by the first committee with the clear expectation that the Judiciary Committee would take it up and do further work on it (The Judiciary Committee is normally the last committee of referral for such bills, owing to the fact that there are no lawyers in Community & Regional Affairs, and there is always one or more in the Judiciary Committee). I spoke with the member of Community & Regional Affairs Committee who had expressed concerns about the bill, and I believe those concerns are valid.

It is for this reason I requested that the bill be heard, and the public be given the opportunity to testify, in the Judiciary Committee.

We should not be removing the opportunity for public testimony on an issue that involves changing public safety policy.

Day 91: The People are being Squeezed out of Alaska's Government

If things continue on their current trajectory, Alaskans will lose their voice on a very significant issue 23 days from now.

The Alaska Constitution spells out that the people shall have the right to a public vote to reject new laws passed by the legislature through the referendum process (Art. XI, Sec. 5).

They have been denied that right for the last three years.

The amount of the PFD is enshrined in state law (Alaska Statute 43.23.025). The legislature could change that law at any time. They haven't. Instead, both the governor and the legislature decided to simply ignore the law. And because the legislature and the governor never changed the law, the people have been denied the right to a referendum vote on the changes.

The Alaska State House and the State Senate have each passed a version of Senate Bill 26 that permanently rewrites the way that the PFD is calculated. In one version, the government take from fund earnings is 75%, leaving 25% for PFD's each year. In the second version, the government's take is only 67%, leaving 33% for PFD's each year.

Both versions received extensive public criticism last year. It became very clear that if either version were to become law a referendum would be initiated immediately. So instead of being reconciled and passed into law, both versions have been sitting on the shelf now for over a year. Waiting.

The legislature has already exceeded the 90-day session, which required setting aside yet another state law (AS 24.05.150(b)). The governor has said he is hopeful that the session will wrap-up before 120 days. But the 120th day is not the day that matters.

According to the constitution, if the legislature is still in session 23 days from now, on May 10th, the people will automatically lose their constitutional right to reject acts of the legislature for the next two and a half years. If that happens, and the legislature passes SB26, the people won't get to exercise their right to a referendum until August of 2020!

And while such an action would be inexcusable, you won't find a single judge who will lift a finger to stop it. If you doubt my conclusion on this, the Legislature released two reports today confirming the details:

Report from Legislative Research Services

Report from the Legislative Legal Division

Juneau has listened to the Alaskan public, and to date has largely decided to ignore what it has heard.

What happens over the next 23 days will decide a great deal for the future of our state.

If there was ever an important time to reach out to your legislators, surely now is that time. The legislature has now exceeded the 90 day session. If they continue on with business as usual like they did last year, legislators will still be in Juneau on May 10th, and the people will suffer greatly because of it.

And don't forget, if the people are denied the right to a referendum in 2018, legislators may not just be looking at a 2020 referendum, they may be looking at a public vote on a full-blown state constitutional convention.

You can only stretch things so far before they break.

Amid Critical Shortage of Police Officers, Alaska Discriminates Against Homeschool Graduates

Today's vote to discriminate against independent homeschool graduates is illustrative of why our state continues to struggle in the area of crime and public safety.

It's no secret that there is a critical shortage of State Troopers in the Mat-Su. In 2005, there were 50 state troopers in the Mat-Su. Now, 13 years later, and with an additional 30,000 residents now living in the Mat-Su, there are only 34 troopers.

Let that sink in for a minute. 30,000 more residents. 16 fewer troopers.

A report released by the state last month confirms that trooper staffing is "critically low". It's not a question of funding more troopers. The legislature funded additional trooper positions years ago. We simply can't find enough good candidates to fill academies.

And it's not just the troopers. For years APD has also struggled to fill its police academies. A partially-filled academy on Day 1 means that an even smaller number will make it to graduation day.

In such an environment, one might expect state agencies to reduce administrative hurdles that make it difficult for quality candidates to apply for police jobs, but for at least one demographic the state has done exactly the opposite.

Eighteen months ago, the state, ignoring public comments against the move, added new regulations that effectively moved Alaska's non-accredited homeschool graduates into the same category as high school dropouts.

While the Air Force Academy specifically targets homeschool graduates for recruitment, the state of Alaska now declares them persona non grata when it comes to police jobs, and instead points to village public safety officers and municipal corrections officer positions, which do not currently require applicants to possess a high school diploma. Alternately, they can incur the time and expense of studying for, taking and passing the GED (General Educational Development) test alongside other students who failed to graduate from high school.

It is remarkable that non-accredited homeschool diplomas are accepted by both the Air Force Academy and West Point, but are rejected by the Alaska Police Standards Council. If even a current West Point or Air Force Academy Cadet isn't eligible to apply to be a police officer in Alaska, maybe that should tell us something.

Such discrimination against otherwise eligible candidates makes no sense and helps no one. I learned recently that the Homeschool Legal Defense Association even had to intervene in a case here in Alaska in which the state was discriminating against an Alaska homeschool graduate even though that student's diploma actually met the requirements of the new regulation.

Listen to the debate we had on this issue before the vote today. It is illustrative of why so many Alaskans are having difficulty finding jobs right now, and, unfortunately for all of us, it's also one of the reasons we currently have a shortage of law enforcement recruits in this state.

Unfortunately, some of those potential recruits will leave Alaska and go to states like Colorado where a homeschool diploma is still welcomed by law enforcement recruiters.

The Alaska Legislature Was Hijacked Yesterday

But perhaps "hijacked" is too nice a word. Hijackers normally reroute a plane rather than simply pointing the nose to the ground and immediately ending the flight without a word of explanation, as happened in the Legislature's Senate Judiciary Committee on Saturday morning.

The legislative process was hijacked by Sen. John Coghill this weekend. He is now making demands about all of the things that legislators will have to give up in order to get it back.

He has demanded that legislators immediately abandon efforts aimed at:

1. Giving the people the opportunity to vote on putting the PFD into the Constitution.
2. Repealing SB91.
3. Passing Bree's Law.

What happened:
After enduring more than a year of being stonewalled, a bipartisan group of legislators made a brave attempt to take back the plane yesterday. They did so by enforcing legislative procedures designed to protect the public process, but were immediately stopped by a single legislator determined to crash the plane rather than see it arrive at the destination that the majority of legislators and the Alaskan people want.

Please contact Senate President Pete Kelly now and demand that control of the legislature be immediately returned to your elected legislators, and that the senate be permitted to vote on these three bills. Sen. Kelly's number is: (907) 465-3709.

A constituent asked me yesterday: "Who do you call when someone hijacks the legislative process?" Is there a legislative Air Marshal? The answer is "No". There isn't anyone in law enforcement you can call. No Parliamentarian. No bailiff. No Sergeant-at-Arms.

It's up to you the Alaskan people in the court of public opinion. You are the sheriff. If the people of Alaska don't step in, then legislators conclude (rightly or wrongly) that what they are doing is acceptable.

For those interested, the law that governs the internal policies of the Legislature is found here: https://tinyurl.com/yanuaw8z

Rule 24 requires that every committee of the legislature take action on all of the bills sent to that committee, and that they report their action to the legislature "as soon as practicable."

Without that requirement, a single committee chairman could hold the entire legislature hostage by refusing to act on a bill until he has extracted a political ransom from all other legislators and from the public.

Rule 24 was written to prevent just that sort of thing from happening.

The bill to protect the PFD in the Constitution has been sitting in the Senate Judiciary Committee for a full 13 months without any action being taken.

The bill to repeal SB91 has been sitting in the same committee for more than 80 days without any action being taken.

Recognizing that the committee was clearly failing in its responsibilities to the people of Alaska, a majority of the members of that committee began the process of forcing the chairman of the committee to either take action on the bills or forfeit his right to do so.

The chairman chose to take action, but when the first bill came before the committee and the committee members were to vote on it, the chairman of the committee immediately halted the meeting before the votes could be counted.

He also declared that he would not allow any member of the public to testify about the bill, even though many Alaskans were waiting in line to do so.

He further demanded that all members of the committee forfeit the right to vote on the bills at any point in the future (https://tinyurl.com/y789p9re).

He expects that other legislators in his caucus will back up whatever he does owing to the caucus pact. It is time the Alaska people say "Enough is Enough". Honor the public process.

"We Can't Change The PFD" (Wait...Do you Think The Public will actually buy that?)

The House approved paying the full dividend by a 21-19 majority vote on Monday. On Friday, after 8 legislators had left for the Easter Holiday, they reversed course and voted to slash the PFD by $1,100.

This morning, with every member of the House of Representatives again present, Democrats, with the help of four wayward Republicans, told us that it would be impossible to raise the PFD because "that issue has already been decided".

And so, while it is perfectly acceptable to change course and cut the PFD, it would be a violation to increase it, according to 23 legislators. Many of those legislators are now telling the public that they tried to increase the PFD, but they just couldn't. I wonder if the Public will buy that.

Friday's Vote: Crony Capitalism Alive & Well in Alaska

If you want to know why our state economy is having trouble keeping up with our government spending, there are two places you should look. And both of them were voted on by the House of Representatives on Friday morning.

Unfortunately, legislators voted both to increase the shackles on our struggling state economy and also to open the floodgates to increased government spending; a terrible combination both for Alaskans and for our economy.

Many Alaskans are already furious at the legislators who voted on Friday to cut $900 from the PFD and use that money to pay for state government.

That single vote removed the equivalent of as much as $1 Billion from Alaska's struggling economy in an effort to prop up unsustainable state government spending.

The second vote that should interest every Alaskan is the vote shown above, when legislators voted to add further restrictions and barriers for those desiring to get a job in massage therapy here in Alaska.

Beginning next year, those who graduated from a massage therapy school that required 620 hours or less of training will have to go back and re-take massage therapy school, even if they have already been working in the industry for 20 years---if they move to Alaska and wish to continue their profession in this state.

Of course, for those who graduated from massage therapy school long ago, or who may be about to graduate from a school that requires only 620 hours, the message is clear: Don't come to Alaska - We don't want you here.

And this is how economies shrink.

While we are busy protecting current licensees from outside competition, those who would be coming to our state are forced to go elsewhere, and Alaskans end up with fewer and costlier choices when they are seeking therapy.

If you are a military spouse who has little choice in where the military sends you and your family, this is how you go from having a good paying job in Texas, to being unemployed or having to take on whatever part-time work you can find in Alaska.

Multiply this a hundred or even a thousand times across nearly every industry in Alaska, and you will get a feeling for why our economy is as small as it is, and getting smaller.

Yes, behind every regulation, behind every training requirement, behind every license the state refuses to issue you, there is someone arguing that fewer licenses somehow make us more safe.

It is important for Alaskans to see that, whether there is any truth in that or not, such regulations have the unmistakable effect of propping up crony capitalism, which limits competition, increases costs for everyone, makes it harder for Alaskans to find jobs, and harder for our economy to grow fast enough to keep up with an ever-growing state government.

If you want to know why our economy can't keep up with the growth of government spending, this is why.

Legislators Sent Away During Floor Session: Why?

The Alaska House of Representatives took a timeout this morning because too many of the people's elected representatives showed up to work today. Wait...Come again? Shouldn't legislators be showing up to vote at announced legislative sessions in the middle of the work week, especially with a 90-Day session limit written into state law?

If too many legislators showing up to work has you confused, let me try to explain how irrational thought becomes rational and illogic passes for logic in the halls of our state government today.

We are currently at Day 72 of the legislative session. State law requires legislators to conclude the regular legislative session within 90 days, and the Alaska Constitution generally requires legislators to meet no less than once every three days during session.

With that in mind, you would hope that legislators would be pushing furiously to complete absolutely as much work as possible before the 90 day deadline hits. Yet the last bill to be voted on in the House was ten days ago, on Day 63.

Today, Day 72, House Democrats are still undecided on what should be included in this year's state budget. At present, they have decided to do nothing until they come to a decision on the budget. However, the Constitution still requires that the House continue to meet to do business. But since that is exactly what the Democrat majority does not want to do, they have a problem.

In yesterday's session, the House made it through the prayer and the flag ceremony, and that's as far as we got before Democrat leadership threw in the towel and adjourned. Today, even with a majority of legislators (21) present, House leadership decided to act as though we were not present. And by pretending that a majority of legislators were absent, they sought to avoid voting on any bills—bills that have been piling up over the last ten days.

The decision to push forward and ignore the legislators present was itself bad enough, especially after the clerk loudly read off the names of 22 legislators. But it became utterly untenable when another legislator arrived in the House Chamber partway through the session at the same time that a cancer survivor was being personally introduced to the legislature.

The introduction of the cancer survivor was immediately interrupted, legislators froze, microphones in the legislature were turned off, and the newly arrived legislator was hurriedly sent away.

Afterwards, the introduction resumed and was completed before a second legislator was obliged to hurriedly leave the room as well, all so that the House could later announce to the public that a majority of legislators were not actually present and that it wouldn't be right to hold a full session to conduct business with a majority of legislators being away.

And that is how the legislature works today.

The Democrat Majority calls this morning a "technical" session because "technically" the legislature believes this fulfills the Constitution's requirement that the legislature meet once every three days, even though "technically" there aren't a majority of legislators present and no business can actually be accomplished. But what happens when technically the "technical" session isn't a "technical" session at all because a majority of legislators actually are present, and the 17 Republican legislators present are very eager to get on with the business of the day?

Well that's simple. When that happens, leadership simply carries on with its legislative boycott and ignores the legislators present.

And this is why the legislature will exceed the 90-Day session this year.

Choosing Dunleavy's Replacement: Who Decides?

When the news hit that my senator, Mike Dunleavy, was resigning from the legislature to run for governor, I immediately began getting phone calls asking if I would consider allowing my name to go forward to finish the final year of his 4-year term.

While it would be a privilege to represent the Mat-Su in the senate, I chose not to allow my name to go forward. More than enough people expressed interest in the position, and I was confident that Mat-Su Republicans would be able to send three qualified names to the governor for appointment, as both Republicans and Democrats have been doing for decades.

I remember six years ago when fellow firefighter, Rep. Carl Gatto, represented a portion of Dunleavy’s district. After serving as my legislator for nearly ten years, Rep. Gatto succumbed to cancer during the legislative session in 2012.

Local Republicans interviewed candidates and selected three names, mine among them, to go to the governor. Each of the candidates were interviewed by the governor, and Governor Parnell selected Shelley Hughes from that list. While I was disappointed at not being chosen, the process was both open and fair and, most importantly, it showed respect for the people who had succeeded in choosing their legislator in the last election; Mat-Su Republicans.

While Alaska’s Constitution assigns the governor a role to play in that process, the governor performs that function on behalf of the people. That same constitution declares “All government originates with the people, [and] is founded upon their will only”. Certainly the governor’s role in replacing legislators who have died in office or resigned is no exception.

I expected that Governor Walker, as every governor before him, would honor the will of the people. But I was wrong. Two weeks after making the decision not to let my name be put forward, Governor Walker did something that no Alaska governor had ever done: He ignored the three candidates sent to him by the Democratic Party to replace Rep. Dean Westlake, and recruited his own candidate; someone who had never been a Democrat.

To pressure legislators into accepting his choice, Walker waited until three hours before the 30 day statutory deadline to announce it, knowing that every day he delayed was a day that the people of House District 40 would be without representation in the state house, and the fragile Democrat majority would be hamstrung.

While the governor’s choice in replacing Rep. Dean Westlake last month is certainly an endorsement of the person he selected, that endorsement is largely overshadowed by what it says about the governor’s relationship with the people. In two words: Not good.

By choosing someone who had never been a Democrat to replace a Democrat legislator, Walker’s action was a breach of the public trust, no less so than his decision to unilaterally decide his own amount for the PFD while ignoring the fact that state law already spells out exactly how the amount of the PFD is to be calculated.

Similarly, current state law (Alaska Statute 15.40.330) requires that the governor appoint an individual who is of the same political party as the legislator being replaced. After rejecting the three individuals put forward by local Democrats, Walker selected his own candidate and then asked that individual to change his voter registration to Democrat. Such gimmicks may be expected of a lawyer like Walker, but they erode the trust placed in that office by the people. 

Lawyers often view our constitution and our laws with an eye for technicalities, reasoning that if a judge doesn’t strike it down, it must be ok. But our constitution is much more than a legal contract. It is a means by which the will of the people is to be expressed over time. It exists to protect their will and to protect their rights. It exists because the people have placed their trust in certain offices and institutions, to perform their duties and to honor that trust.

Constitutionally, there is nothing to stop President Trump from appointing a new supreme court justice tomorrow. The U.S. Constitution places no limit on the number of justices the president can appoint. Legally, he would be entirely within his rights as president to make such an appointment. And yet, were he to do so, each of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, would immediately recognize such an action as a violation of the trust we have placed in the office of president. No judge could rise to stop him, but we would each feel the violation.*

Governor Walker’s action in replacing Rep. Westlake and now Sen. Dunleavy is no different. It is a violation of trust. Certainly every previous governor has considered the value of being able to choose an individual who will support their agenda in the legislature. And yet, they have continued to honor that process, or attempted to restore that process when it has started to go astray. Not so with this governor.

The individual selected to replace Sen. Dunleavy will be chosen by the people in an election later this year. If the governor does not let the people participate in selecting Dunleavy’s replacement today, I fear that any individual he chooses will be placed in a profound disadvantage come November.

It will no longer be about the credentials and good qualities of that person. It will be about restoring a relationship between the governor and the people that has become dysfunctional.

Rep. David Eastman has served in the Alaska State House representing the Mat-Su since 2017; He ran on a platform of fighting for genuine conservative reform, fiscally and socially, and remains committed to delivering on that promise.

*As was pointed out to me by an astute reader, were the president interested in having another justice or two serve on the Supreme Court, the new appointees could be welcomed and confirmed on the Court with the very same number of votes received by the president's most recent appointee to the Supreme Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch. The president would not need to pass or sign a new law, as the number of justices could be permanently (or temporarily) changed at any time with a simple majority vote of the house and senate.

Message to Governor Walker: Honor the Appointment Process

My senator, Mike Dunleavy, resigned two weeks ago to run for governor.

The Alaska Constitution spells out the process for choosing his replacement until the next election.

Now the governor is trying to change that process, and I want no part in it.

The process for filling vacancies in the legislature is provided for in the Alaska Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 4) and in Alaska state law (AS 15.40.330).

Legislators represent the people. In the time between elections, the constitution requires the governor to appoint a legislator on their behalf. State law requires that the appointee be a member of the same political party as the legislator the people elected in the last election.

Unfortunately, the governor did not feel it necessary to honor that requirement, and this past week pursued appointing someone to the legislature who had never belonged to the political party of the Democrat legislator he was replacing. His action was an unprecedented departure from the intent, if not also the letter, of the law.

Two weeks ago, Alaska Republicans from as far as Valdez, Delta Junction, Wasilla, and Talkeetna met together to vet each of the Republican candidates seeking to replace Sen. Mike Dunleavy.

It was a multi-step process that began with all Republicans in Senator Dunleavy's district able to participate in local Republican conventions earlier this month. Leaders elected at each of those events then gathered together at the Menard Sports Center in Wasilla to consider applicants and interview the top five candidates.

On January 15th, the list of eleven candidates was whittled down to the top five, and then to the top three contenders who were each approved by a majority vote and forwarded to the governor for appointment.

The three candidates nominated by Alaska Republicans are: Rep. George Rauscher, Todd Smoldon, and Tom Braund.

The decision now before the governor is whether he will honor that process, as previous Alaskan governors have done, and select a Republican appointee from this list, or not.

I choose to honor the process. If the governor were to appoint me, I will decline the appointment. I hope that all Mat-Su Republicans who would like to one day be our state senator will do the same.

Day 203: Democrat Leadership Pays Legislators Not to Show up to Work Today

In 203 days of session this year, I never once missed an announced floor session, excepting when Democrat legislators left Juneau in June and it afforded me the opportunity to drive my family the 1,852 miles back home to Wasilla. As Mark Twain observed, "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session."

I returned to Juneau for this morning's legislative floor session for the sole purpose of voting to end the current special session once and for all. There was nothing on the agenda today, the governor's income tax is dead, and the Alaska Senate voted on Friday to adjourn permanently until the legislature returns to Juneau next year.

With nothing remaining on the agenda, and no hope of accomplishing anything in the remaining nine days of special session, it should have been an easy decision for the House to adjourn and thus end this year's endless legislative sessions at a record-breaking and hitherto unfathomable 203 days.

But this was not to be, and my return to Juneau today was a wasted trip. Democrat legislators in Juneau have decided to keep the party going at all costs, even going so far as to arrange to pay for legislators to fly home on adjournment travel over the weekend, not to return until next year.

This, along with the decision by some Democrat legislators to remain outside of the room when roll was taken this morning, ensured that the House was five legislators short of quorum (21) and was unable to vote to permanently adjourn.

For those who aren't aware, legislators such as Sen. Mike Dunleavy, who have expressed interest in running for governor, and legislators hoping to run for lieutenant governor, are banned from campaigning while the legislature is in session. The Democrat's governor and lieutenant governor are exempt from that ban.

In order to rack up more than 210 days in session, in a state that limits legislative sessions to just 90 days, House Democrats in Alaska are having to pull out all the stops to keep the party going, even going so far as to pay for legislators to fly home to prevent reaching a quorum in Juneau.

And so the legislature will continue in a 'ghost' session until Day 211, when the 30-day constitutional limit for special sessions will go into effect for the third time this year. In the meantime, because the legislature is still technically in session, there is a total ban on legislators raising money either for their own campaigns or even helping the campaigns of others.

These are the antics that House Democrats are using to try to protect their governor's re-election and increase their control in the legislature.

Republican and former Mayor of Juneau, Bob Robertson, was a delegate to Alaska's Constitutional Convention in 1956. On the 49th Day of the Convention, Mr. Robertson rose to address his fellow delegates and asked:

"...what is to prevent either house from...Having a recess for three days...Then meeting again and then immediately taking another recess for another three days?"

Frank Barr, a US Marshal and delegate from Fairbanks, rose in response: "I can answer Mr. Robertson's question as to what would prevent it. The newspapers would prevent it."

Where are the newspapers today to prevent such abuses? What does the public have to say?

In an effort to prevent this type of abuse from happening, our Constitution requires that no one chamber in the legislature can maintain a "ghost" session "for longer than three days". However, leaders in the legislature have decided that this means "not longer than five days", and so the House felt justified this morning in adjourning until Friday, at which point the farce will no doubt be continued.

When leaders in the legislature have reached the point of paying fellow legislators to keep them from showing up to work and voting to end the farce, you know that the legislature has reached a very low place indeed.

Now, by law, my fellow legislators and I are prohibited from raising funds and campaigning to change this arrangement for another nine days. Likewise, some governor and lieutenant governor hopefuls will now do the math and realize that successfully running for either office is a mathematical impossibility when you were prohibited from campaigning for 211 days this year, and less than 50 days later you will be asked to return to Juneau for perhaps another 211 days where you will once again be prohibited from campaigning.

Beam Me Up, Scotty: After 200 Days Legislators Have Now Left Orbit

If you've managed to escape the crazy antics of politicians in Juneau this year, my hat goes off to you. On any other year, you would be among the majority of Alaskans who generally find more important things to do than read every word of a politician's that finds it way into a local newspaper. But with the Alaska Legislature having spent more than 200 days in session this year, and still going strong, the antics of those politicians are getting harder and harder to escape. Of course, for those of us with front row seats to this Kabuki Theater, there is no escape.

And this past week was pure Kabuki.

• On Tuesday, the Alaska House of Representatives approved the Criminal Justice Bill (SB54), with 80% of legislators voting in favor of it.

Passage of SB54 was celebrated with several rounds of back-slapping and chest-bumping from those who voted for it, and also from the governor.

• After the vote, the governor issued a formal press release and declared: 
  
  “I thank the House for moving to respond to Alaskans’ concerns about public safety by passing Senate Bill 54...I look forward to seeing the Senate concur, and to signing the bill when it reaches my desk.” –Governor Bill Walker
   
• On Friday, the Alaska Senate met and, following recommendations from both the House and the governor, voted to approve SB54 and send it to the governor's desk for signature. After passing SB54, the senate then voted to go home for good on Day 200 of the legislative session.

  That's when all hell broke loose. You see, the House has been counting on the Senate to reject the bill, but the Senate decided to accept it as-is and go home.
  
  You would have thought they had just taken an ice cream cone from a starving child.
  
  The outrage from the governor and from House leadership confirms beyond all doubt that it really is possible to spend too much time in Juneau, and that the 200 days spent in Juneau this year have clearly had their effect.
  
  Outrage from the House was as swift as it was stern. Immediately following the vote, the Speaker of the House declared:
  
  "What we witnessed today by the State Senate was an abdication of their responsibilities. They allowed a constitutionally flawed bill to be sent to the Governor and they worsened the ongoing recession and fiscal crisis by refusing to even consider a new revenue proposal."
  
  Yes, this was exactly the same bill that House Leadership had boasted about passing only three days earlier. This was also the same "urgently needed bill" that House Leadership had tossed into a desk drawer and ignored from April 7th until October 23rd.
  
  The governor also did an about-face shortly after the Senate passed the bill. After first saying "I look forward to seeing the Senate concur, and to signing the bill when it reaches my desk", he issued a new press release in which he said that SB54 "contains some issues that must be further addressed by the Legislature," signaling that he no longer looked forward to signing it.
  
  House Leadership has since indicated that they have no desire to end the special session, and that they will "force the Senate back to Juneau." And so, after returning home to partake in Veterans Day events in the Mat-Su yesterday, I will be flying back to Juneau tonight to participate in Day 203 of the legislative session, and cast a vote in favor of finally ending this special session once and for all.
  
  In 1981, the legislature spent 168 days in session, and this was considered such an outrageous abuse that the people took the extraordinary step of passing a constitutional amendment to prohibit such a thing from ever happening again.
  
  In 2006, the governor and the legislature attempted to circumvent that amendment and proceeded to spend a jaw-dropping 189 days in session. An initiative was immediately circulated that culminated in the passage of a new state law imposing a 90-Day Limit on all future legislative sessions.

  That law, Alaska Statute 24.05.150, states:

  "The legislature shall adjourn from a regular session within 90 consecutive calendar days, including the day the legislature first convenes in that regular session."
  
  This year, the governor and the legislature attempted to circumvent both the constitutional amendment and the 90-Day Session Law, and held session for an unprecedented 180 days straight. At present, the legislature is in its 4th special session this year, and has already been in session a total of 203 days since January.
  
  Keep in mind, every day that the legislature is in session is a day that legislators like Sen. Mike Dunleavy are legally prohibited from campaigning for governor, while the sitting governor and lieutenant governor are exempt from such restrictions.
  
  Keep in mind that if you were considering running to replace your lack-luster legislator next year, the idea of another 200-day session may give you pause before doing so. If not you, it is quite likely to give your employer pause, if you happen to be employed, or your spouse pause, if you happen to be married.
  
  Keep in mind also, that if you are among the handful of legislators currently working to turn this ship around, this year’s 200-day session may have already put you in a tough spot with your employer, and your time in Juneau this year has likely come at the price of time away from your family and your community.
  
  There can also be no doubt at this point that this year's endless legislative session was both calculated and deliberate. Thanks to the governor we are now in our fourth special session this year, in addition to the 90-day session laid out in state law. And thanks to a majority of legislators in the House, SB54 and its reforms to SB91 were thrown into a desk drawer back on April 7th and did not see the light of day until SB54 was brought out to help justify yet another special session at the end of October.
  
  Of course, now that SB54 has successfully passed the legislature and the Senate has voted to adjourn, you would think that the governor and the House have run out of excuses to keep this party going. You would think that.
  
  But House Democrat Leadership is now openly talking about dragging out the special session until Day 211, the date on which the 30-day constitutional limit for special sessions will go into effect for the third time this year.
  
  The message from the governor and House Leadership seems to be: "the show must go on--and we can force the show to go on."
  
  But the show does not need to go on, and frankly, there isn't anything they've accomplished this year that couldn't have been accomplished in the first 90 days.
  
  In English class, I remember being taught to ask the question "what is the word ‘therefore’ there for?" I think every Alaskan needs to stop and ask the question "what is the legislature there for?"
  
  Why are legislators in Juneau in the middle of November?
  
  Why are they now asked to spend more time in Juneau than they do in the districts they represent?
  
  Under these circumstances, does it even make sense to continue to refer to them as part-time legislators?
  
  And what’s to be done with a legislature that has lost touch with a majority of Alaskans?
  
  One fix would be to abolish the legislature, but that inevitably just gives more power to the governor. Another fix would be to make it more difficult to serve in the legislature, but that makes it more difficult to elect good people to the legislature and increases the likelihood that the current crop of legislators will be re-elected indefinitely.
  
  A more effective plan would be to change out those legislators who have spent so much time in Juneau this year that they have seen fit to give leadership the votes needed to drag this session out to the very bitter end.
  
  In the end, as with all things in politics, this show will go on just as long as the people permit it to go on. When the dull roar of unhappy voters becomes a loud roar, politicians will run for cover.

SB91 Repeal Effort Garners 12 Legislators But Falls Three Votes Short of Next Step

Even though the last 16 months have witnessed the spectacular crash and burn of SB91, the governor and most members of the legislature continue to have their foot pressed firmly on the gas pedal. In that context, SB54 doesn't represent a change in direction so much as it represents pulling the driver out of a vehicle that he and everyone else now recognize has been in so many car accidents that it is no longer roadworthy.

As the smoking wreckage of SB91 begins to get smaller in the rearview, the same driver is now driving a new car (SB54) and headed in exactly the same direction as before. Unfortunately, we're all still along for the ride, bracing for the next collision.

To date, 12 legislators have stepped forward to turn the car around. Unfortunately, 12 legislators is 3 short of the 15 required to initiate the process of a full repeal of SB91.

To take a step back for a moment, it is important to recognize that the 30th Alaska Legislature (those serving in the legislature this year and next year) have still not had the opportunity to formally vote on, or even discuss, whether or not SB91 should be completely repealed. The topic has been discussed at some length at town halls of course, but the governor did not include it as an agenda item on any of the various special sessions he has called this year, so the only discussion that has formally taken place has been in the context of amending SB54, a bill which the governor did include on the agenda of the current special session.

Last Saturday, the House debated Amendment 11, which would have repealed most of SB91, but the senate has not had the opportunity to debate even that portion of SB91, as the amendment failed to pass the house in a 13-27 vote.

Legislators recently sent the above letter to the governor requesting that he add SB91 to the agenda of the special session so that the issue of repeal could be openly debated in both the House and the Senate. Despite numerous requests from the public and members of the legislature, he has shown no interest in opening the door to such a discussion.

As stories of the failure of SB91 continue to multiply, there are only two other avenues by which the legislature can throw open the door to debate the merits of a full repeal. The legislature can of course wait until the next regular legislative session in January and put forward a new bill at that time. Other than waiting for that opportunity to arrive next year, the only other option is for legislators themselves to add SB91 to the agenda of a current or future special session.

The process for doing so requires the Speaker of the House (Rep. Bryce Edgmon) and the President of the Senate (Sen. Pete Kelly) to ascertain whether a sufficient number of legislators wish to take up the topic of SB91. Alaska has a total of 60 legislators. If 40 legislators answer in the affirmative, then SB91 is added to the agenda of the special session.

That process can begin whenever the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate agree that legislators should be polled. Even if they do not wish to repeal SB91, they can still be compelled to poll legislators if 15 legislators (5 senators and 10 representatives) request in writing than a poll be conducted. Over the past two weeks, two letters were circulated (one originating in the House and the other originating in the Senate) to initiate such a request. To date, only 12 legislators (4 senators and 8 representatives) have subscribed to that request. It cannot go forward until 1 additional senator and 2 additional representatives are willing to join such a request.

The legislators who have already signed one or the other of the two letters include:

Sen. Mike Dunleavy
Sen. David Wilson
Sen. Shelly Hughes
Sen. Mia Costello
Rep. George Rauscher
Rep. David Eastman
Rep. Lora Reinbold
Rep. Colleen Sullivan-Leonard
Rep. DeLena Johnson
Rep. Mark Neuman
Rep. Cathy Tilton
Rep. Charisse Millett