After the November election, newly elected legislators will immediately gather to hold their own elections. For members of the Alaska House of Representatives, the first decision will be whether or not to pursue a Republican political agenda. Republicans have won majorities in the house and senate on Election Day every year for decades, but have consistently abandoned conservative voters and any hope of pursuing a conservative agenda.
You can see this abandonment in the type of Republicans (and Democrats) that they elect to leadership, in the way they manipulate committee membership to sideline conservative voices, and in the way they subject conservative legislators and their staff to public sanctions. If you were new to the legislature, you might marvel at how odd it is that the most conservative legislators and their staffers are invariably the ones who are most vulnerable to public sanction. Legislators from conservative parts of the state are not allowed to be a consistent voice for those they represent in our state. If they persist in doing so, they will be dealt with; their staff will be fired, they will be excluded from caucuses and legislative committees, and will be told that they and their conservative policy proposals are persona non grata in Juneau.
Keep in mind, Juneau is one of the least conservative parts of our state. The precinct where the state capitol building is located voted more than 5 to 1 for Hillary over Donald Trump. This is the environment in which legislators live and breathe during the legislative session. It is unheard of that a legislator would go to Juneau and come back more conservative. Every inducement in Juneau, financially, psychologically and otherwise, encourages legislators to forget their conservative constituents and focus on “getting things done”.
That may sound admirable to the average Alaskan, but it begs a question. Who are they getting things done for?
In Juneau, the lobbyists and special interests come first. If there is anything left over, that’s what goes to the people in the form of a reduced PFD.
This year, the PFD is $…. according to the state law that calculates…
election will be to elect a Speaker of the House.
For most of my time in the legislature, the speaker has been a member of the Democrat caucus whose agenda included a state income tax, increases in state government spending, and continued state subsidizing of the abortion industry.
Think of it like electing a president for all 40 members of the House of Representatives. Once elected, the Speaker of the House will drive the legislative agenda for the next two years.
There are three candidates in my race for the state house, with three very different approaches to choosing the Speaker of the House:
My first opponent is from Houston, and I have every reason to believe that she would not be caught dead voting for a Republican for Speaker of the House.
For my own part, voting for the current Democrat Speaker was a non-starter for me as well. My values are irreconcilable with an agenda that includes an income tax, increased government spending, and abortion subsidies. The differences are just too great. One thing I do know, if I am elected on Tuesday, I will not be voting for any of the Democrat candidates currently running to be Speaker of the House.
My second opponent has taken a different approach. To those in the liberal portion of the district (Talkeetna), he has said that he will join a Democrat Majority, and to those in the conservative portion of the district (Wasilla), he has said that he will join a Republican Majority.
Some have found these statements contradictory.
However, the common thread is that my opponent is committed to voting with the majority for whomever is going to win the election for Speaker.
Of course, if a majority of Democrats are elected on Tuesday, they can be expected to elect a Democrat Speaker, and if Republicans win a majority on Election Day (and we don’t see a repeat of last year’s defections to the Democrat Majority), then you can bet they will elect a Republican Speaker.
When asked about joining the Democrat Caucus, my opponent went on to make this further statement: “—I will join the caucus. It’s to the advantage of the representative from any district.”
With respect, I submit that those who have accused my opponent of lying are missing the point.
He has said that he will join the majority, and he has said that it would be to his advantage to do so. And of course, he is exactly right. It is to his personal advantage to align himself with the majority, regardless of which party comes to power on Tuesday.
This fact has not been lost on either me or on my Democrat opponent. And yet, I have every reason to believe that she would still choose to remain a Democrat even if the Democrats do not prevail on Tuesday, just as I would still choose to remain a Republican if the Democrats were to prevail. I applaud my Democrat opponent for remaining true to her progressive values.
Yes, it would be to the personal advantage of any legislator to decide in advance to join with whichever party is in power, but this entirely ignores whether their joining that party would be to the advantage of the people that legislator represents. If a legislator believes that a progressive agenda will best serve their constituents, then it makes perfect sense to join a caucus of progressive Democrats. If, on the other hand, a legislator believes that a conservative agenda will best serve their constituents, then it makes perfect sense to join a caucus of conservative Republicans.
And therein lies the difference between the three of us.
One of us aligns with conservative values.
One of us aligns with progressive values.
And one of us recognizes that it is to his personal benefit to be flexible.
