Month: January 2022

In Alaska, lawyers decide who gets to be a judge. They control the Judicial Council and use that control to prevent any judicial conservative from being considered for appointment by the Governor. There are no dissenting voices on the Alaska Supreme Court. The lawyers won’t allow it.

There’s a simple fix. Repeal the clause of the Constitution which gives the Alaska Bar Association the right to name three members of the Judicial Council. This would give the Governor the right to name all six public members of the Council, subject to legislative confirmation.

Such a constitutional amendment will never be proposed by the legislature, since it requires a 2/3 vote. The lawyers have enough allies in the legislature to prevent that from ever happening. But delegates to a constitutional convention can propose an amendment by majority vote, and would likely do so if voters give them a chance.

In Alaska, parents don’t control the education of their children. The teacher’s union and the education establishment have a monopoly on public funding. Private and religious schools can’t receive any state support, because the Alaska Constitution forbids it. The legislature won’t propose an amendment to remove this prohibition. Delegates to a convention could do it, with a simple majority vote.

The United States Supreme Court is about to overturn Roe v. Wade and allow state legislatures to write laws on abortion. But it won’t affect Alaska. In Alaska, the Alaska Supreme Court has taken complete control over the issue of abortion, and the people have no say. A simple amendment to our Constitution could change that, but there are enough pro-choice state legislators to prevent that from happening. It would take a 2/3 majority, and the votes aren’t there. At a convention a majority could prevail, and give the voters a chance to decide the issue.

If the people call for a constitutional convention this November, it will probably be because they want to protect and perpetuate the Permanent Fund Dividend. Opponents of the Convention will use scare tactics, saying the delegates, and the people, can’t be trusted. Millions of dollars will be spent trying to convince Alaskans that they can’t be trusted.

Who can be trusted?

Should we trust the lawyers to pick our judges? Should we trust the teacher’s union to control the education of our children? Should we trust the Alaska Supreme Court to decide abortion policy? Should we trust the legislature with the Permanent Fund Dividend?

Or should we, instead, trust ourselves?

That’s the stunning news from the recent Quinipiac poll that had Biden at a 33% approval rating. Here’s the link. A majority or plurality of every demographic — young, old, black Hispanic or white — says he’s performing as they expected.

If this disaster of a Presidency is what people expected, how did he get elected? Because he wasn’t Donald Trump. That’s why people voted for him, even though they knew he wasn’t up to the job. We have Trump to thank for Joe Biden.

I believe more and more Republicans — even those who were all in on Trump — are starting to realize this. And that’s why Trump can’t win the Republican nomination in 2024. If he could lose to Biden in 2020, he could lose to just about any Democrat in 2024.

Beginning in West Virginia on May 10th, a series of primaries across the country will pit Trump Republicans against Republicans who are not aligned with Trump. These are proxy elections, where allegiance to Trump is the defining difference between the candidates.

The last of these primaries will be in Alaska on August 16th, with Trump Republican Kelly Tshibaka challenging the liberal incumbent, Lisa Murkowski. On the merits, Murkowski doesn’t deserve reelection. But she’s got a chance, thanks to Donald Trump.

We know what the big issue will be when the legislature convenes next week. It’s been the same fight for last five years. For four months (or five, or six) they’ll debate, how big will the PFD be?

There’s no reason to expect that this will be the last such fight. The legislature is divided, and both political parties are divided. The people of Alaska are divided. The only way to resolve the issue, once and for all, is by amending the Constitution. Putting a formula into law won’t help, as we learned in 2016. Governor Walker’s veto of the dividend amount was in violation of the law, but the Supreme Court said that didn’t matter. Passing a new law wouldn’t accomplish a thing.

And a new statute is the best we can expect, according to Senate President Pete Micciche. He said as much in a recent podcast with MRAK. He wants a 50-50 split of Permanent Fund earnings, with half going to the dividend. He said getting eleven votes in the Senate and 21 in the House will be a challenge. He’s in a position to know. That means getting fourteen in the Senate, and 27 in the House to propose a constitutional amendment just isn’t going to be possible.

Since the legislature has proven itself incapable of settling this dispute, it’s up to the people. Do they trust themselves with such a decision? Or would they rather let Alaska’s politicians continue to deal with it? If they have faith in their own judgement, they’ll vote for a constitutional convention in November. If they do vote yes, the legislature will decide when and where the convention would be held, how long it would last, and how the delegates will be elected. Parts of the law in effect today, SLA Alaska 1955 ch. 46, are obsolete.

The old statute did set up a system which resulted in an outstanding cross section of Alaska’s most thoughtful citizens (only eight of them legislators). They proposed a model Constitution, which Alaskans have been generally satisfied with, up to now. But the men and women who wrote our Constitution didn’t know there was going to be a Permanent Fund, much less a dividend.

They did realize that situations might arise in the future which required amending the Constitution. And they understood that such needed amendments might never get the 2/3 vote needed for the legislature to propose it. In this case, the legislature itself is the problem, and it can’t fix itself. Because of the foresight of the framers of Alaska’s Constitution, we’ve had a chance every ten years to vote for a convention, to break the legislative gridlock. When they gave voters this power, they necessarily believed they could be trusted with it. Do we?

The opponents of the dividend will try to convince voters that a convention simply can’t be trusted. It might propose something radical, which would be ratified by the people, because the people can’t be trusted.

Alaskan voters have a right to know where candidates for the legislature, and Governor, stand on this issue. They also need to know how the the1955 law currently in place will be amended. Such legislation should be introduced, and debated, this year. People need to know what to expect if they do vote yes.

It’s not entirely clear where Governor Dunleavy stands on this issue. Perhaps he still hopes that somehow the legislature will propose a constitutional solution to this problem. Since that’s almost certain not to happen, he should introduce a bill setting out the procedures he would prefer for the convention, so that voters will have some idea of what to expect if the call for a convention is approved.

As Governor of this state, he has an obligation to lead.

During the course of the last month six of my articles have been included in Must Read Alaska, which is the #2 source of news in Alaska, behind only the Anchorage Daily News (and not that far behind). Suzanne Downing created MRAK from nothing, and I admire her greatly. I intend to continue to contribute to MRAK and hope to play a small part in having it overtake the ADN.

Johne Binkley and I served together in the legislature for six years, and I observed him carefully. He had his own agenda, and was very bright, but completely untrustworthy. And not as bright as he thought he was. He now owns the ADN and is contemplating using it as a vehicle to help elect himself Governor. He’d run as a Republican and hope to win Walker and Democrat votes in the runoff.

He’ll only do it if he thinks he’ll win. He ran for Governor in 2006 and was badly beaten by Sarah Palin. He doesn’t want to suffer that humiliation again. We’ll learn of his decision on or before June1st.

On January 7 the Supreme Court will hear challenges to two vaccine mandates ordered by the Biden administration. It looks as though the court is at last ready to intervene on behalf of basic American liberty. This is a decision that is long overdue, but it will be welcomed by American patriots.  If these mandates are overturned, it will be because there is a new Thomas Majority on the court.  It includes Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. These five conservatives, acting together, can get the court back to what it was meant to be, and was for the first 150 years of its existence.

Hopefully, the vaccine mandate cases are a harbinger of things to come.  Constitutional conservatives across the country eagerly look forward to a series of decisions in 2022, and many more in the years ahead.  In June the Court is poised to overturn the Roe v. Wade (1973).  Affirmative action is before the court in Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard.  In New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen the right to concealed carry will be addressed. AHA v. Becerra should give us a review of “Chevron deference”, which was adopted in 1984, and has led to the explosive growth and power of the administrative state.

Roe v. Wade is one of the worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court, right up there with Plessy v. Ferguson (1894), which authorized legally sanctioned racial discrimination. It wasn’t as bad as Dred Scott, which led to the Civil War, but it has denied the people of this country their right to decide abortion policy. On that subject, the court writes all the rules, and the people have nothing to say about it.  There is no right to an abortion in the Constitution. They just made it up. This has been a constitutional travesty from the day it was decided.  It took the court 58 years to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson. So much for the “sacred principle” of stare decisis. When Roe is overturned in June, it will be 49 years old.

Affirmative action may be well intended, but it’s still racial discrimination. In Harvard’s case Asian-Americans are the principle victims.  I fully expect Justice Thomas to write the opinion declaring such discrimination unconstitutional. As a proud, highly intelligent black man, Thomas is viscerally opposed to being treated as if he is incapable of making it on his own. This is an opinion that will be a joy to read.

Practically speaking, you can’t get a concealed carry permit in New York. Does this violate the 2nd Amendment’s guarantee of ” . . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms . . .”? Emphasis on bear. That’s the question before the court in NYR&PA v. Bruen. There is an excellent chance that the Thomas Majority will rule that there is a right to “bear”, or carry, arms. After all, it’s specifically guaranteed in the language of the Bill of Rights. If so, this case will be the most important advance in 2nd Amendment law since District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

This country and this economy are practically strangling in over-regulation. The administrative state is a constitutional abomination. Overturning Chevron deference will be the first step in reining in this bureaucratic monster. AHA v. Becerra is the perfect case to start rolling back burdensome regulations.

Justice Kavanaugh’s vote will be critical in all of these cases, in some of them the deciding one. But he wouldn’t be on the court if it was up to Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski. She never really made clear why she opposed him. In the end, she mumbled something about judicial temperament, but that was just a weak excuse.

In fact, Murkowski expects Kavanaugh to be the fifth vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Murkowski is a pro-abortion extremist. She doesn’t believe in any restrictions, of any kind, on a woman’s right to end the life of an unborn child she carries. This is her most sacred principle. I she had her way, Brett Kavanaugh wouldn’t be on the court because of it.

Because Alaska now has a jungle primary, and ranked choice voting, Murkowski doesn’t think she’ll pay a political price for her opposition to Kavanaugh’s nomination.  She will make it on the ballot in November, and expects to achieve a majority as the second choice of Democratic voters.  Her conservative opponent, Kelly Tshibaka, has chosen to run as proud Trump Republican, so Alaska Democrats will never support her. 

In large part, expect Murkowski to try to turn her reelection into a referendum on Trump.  His behavior on and after January 6^th will be fully exposed in the upcoming public hearings of the House Select Committee.  If voting for Murkowski is a way to repudiate Trump, she’ll wind up getting votes from more than just Democrats.  The irony of ironies will be that if Alaskans have to endure six more years of Murkowski, we’ll have Trump to thank for it.