"politically fraught with peril"

Sen. Lisa Murkowski said that it may be legal for state courts to disqualify former President Donald Trump from running in the 2024 election, but that doing so would be “politically fraught with peril.” https://t.co/1eLC8XvjAX

— Anchorage Daily News (@adndotcom) December 23, 2023

So imagine, Arnold Schwarzenegger decides to run for President and he's getting good polling results.  But someone sues to keep him off the ballot because he wasn't a natural born United States citizen.  

The Constitution says clearly:

"Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Would Sen. Murkowski or any of the others talking about "fraught with political peril" say we shouldn't enforce the Constitution because it would be "fraught with political peril" to do so? 

Well that's exactly what is happening with Murkowski and others who want to keep Trump's name on the Colorado ballot.   As President, he, at the very least, gave aid and comforted those trying to overthrow the election of Joe Biden by storming Congress and stopping the ratification of the election. (And we don't even know who all he showed or sold secret documents to yet.)

Fourteenth Amendment  Equal Protection and Other Rights

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Trump's denials are no different from the denials of any accused criminal who tries to twist words and find legal loopholes to avoid the legal consequences of their actions.  

Does he really have to be tried for insurrection?  We all watched it live.  We watched the Jan 6 committee reviews of video tape and listened to witnesses, many who were Trump appointees who were with him in the White House on January 6.  

We've heard the tape of Trump demanding of the Georgia officials: 

"All I want to do is this: I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have," Trump says, according to audio of the call. "There's nothing wrong with saying, you know, that you've recalculated."

He's a known liar and he knew he lost Georgia and was demanding the Georgia officials overturn the election by finding him the votes he needed.  

So what is this "political peril" everyone is so worried about?

First, I'd ask, when did we start inserting political consequences into court proceedings?  Yes, it's happened, but it isn't supposed to.  It's the rule of law, not the rule of the mob that courts are supposed to uphold.  

Second, what crystal ball does Murkowski have that tells her there will be political peril?  No one knows what will happen in the future.  So this is just conjecture of what might happen.  Sure, there are lots of Trump supporters who likely would be very angry.  

Propagandists on the Right will tell Trump's supporters that this was an illegal prevention of Trump's right to run for office.  Is that a reason to ignore the Constitution?  Absolutely not.  This is a phantom peril.  Of his most rabid supporters who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 

"Approximately 723 federal defendants have had their cases adjudicated and received sentences for their criminal activity on Jan. 6. Approximately 454 have been sentenced to periods of incarceration. Approximately 151 defendants have been sentenced to a period of home detention, including approximately 28 who also were sentenced to a period of incarceration."  

"Approximately 714 individuals have pleaded guilty to a variety of federal charges, many of whom faced or will face incarceration at sentencing."

(DOJ, December 2023)

I'm not saying Trump supporters won't make lots of noise, maybe do damage, and generally try to reenact another January 6.  They have already made death threats against the  judges on the Colorado Supreme Court.  Trump isn't calling on his backers to stand down.  But we have police.  We have the National Guard.  We have the military if we have to put down another insurrection.

Third, if Trump is on the ballot and loses again, we are just as likely to face political peril then as now, maybe more so.  If they successfully bully the courts into ignoring the Constitution now, Trump supporters will be even more emboldened to try to prevent a peaceful transition again.  

Surely it's a better option to uphold the Constitution now and  remove Trump from the ballot now and let his various court cases play out. Let's face this speculated political peril now rather than later.     

Fourth, if the court ignores the plain language of the US Constitution and allows Trump to be placed on the Colorado ballot (and in other states if Colorado is successful in this), then we are already in political peril, we've already stumbled out of democracy and the rule of law.  The fact that we are even debating this says we are already one or more steps into the fascist dictatorship Trump has already said he would head.  

Fifth, Gerald Ford, after he became president when Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace, also feared political peril if Nixon were prosecuted.  So he pardoned Nixon.  While I think that decision was wrong - and set up a precedent for Trump to grasp at - it didn't violate the law or the Constitution.  The president has the power to pardon.  But when pardoning Nixon 

"Ford announced that he had pardoned Richard Nixon for all crimes he committed or "may have committed" while president" (Washington Post 2006)

which tells us he fully believed that an ex-president can be tried for acts committed while president - something Trump has said couldn't be done.   

Sixth, Murkowski and others have said that the people should have the final say by voting.  But no matter how much people would want to vote for Schwartzeneger or Trump, the two are constitutionally ineligible to be president.  We don't vote on whether to ignore the Constitution.  

"Political Peril" here is the bogey man the Right (and some on the Left) are using to justify ignoring the clear language of the Constitution.  Remember, this fight is for the man who spent years spreading the lies about Obama being born in Kenya and not being a natural born US citizen.  

Trump's whole strategy is to cause distrust of every US institution and then to say that "I alone can fix it."   The idea of "political peril" is part and parcel of his game plan.  Democracies don't make exceptions for bullies who threaten violence if they don't get their way.  

That is exactly what is happening here.  Arnold Schwarzenegger is NOT a natural born US citizen and is not qualified to run for president. 

Donald Trump supported an insurrection to overthrow the vote of the people and maintain his position as president even though he lost the popular and electoral college votes.  And he isn't qualified to run for president.  

Let's face whatever peril lies ahead now instead of next November when that peril might reappear if US voters vote for Biden over Trump once again.  Let's stop that peril now rather than let the Trump machine work to more effectively falsify the election results than they did in 2020.  

Hoping For A Short, Boring Redistricting Board Meeting Monday - Here's Why

Quick Take:  The Board's job Monday is to either accept the Interim Plan as the Permanent Plan OR to 'show cause' why it shouldn't be the Permanent Plan.  

What does "show cause" mean?  Basically, it means they need to give good legal and/or factual reasons why, in this case, the Interim Plan, shouldn't be adopted.  

If the Board Monday has no good reasons to object to adopting the Interim Plan as the Permanent Plan until the next redistricting process in ten years (eight years now), it will be a short meeting.

If Board members feel the need to change the Interim Plan, I expect they will consult with the Board's attorney on how to do this and whether it is likely to succeed. Some, of that discussion, if not all of it, will (but not necessarily should) be held in Executive Session.  (The courts felt they overdid the Executive Session leading up the the Interim Plan.)

If they decide that they want to "show cause"  I expect they will either discuss their reasons, and/or adjourn to work on those reasons.  They may just ask the attorney to write up their response to be voted on at a later meeting.  This will then be sent to the Superior Court for consideration.  

At least, that's how I understand this.  

Background:  I don't like to repeat myself, but this opening is a quick background for people who haven't watched this saga too closely.  If you know this pretty well, just skip on down.  

Back in May 2022 the Alaska Supreme Court said the plan the Alaska Redistricting Board had approved (the vote was 3-2) was unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering.  They sent it back to the Board through the Superior Court, ordering the Board to approve the Option 2 plan that the Board considered, but had not approved.  This, then would be the Interim Plan for the November 2022 election.  Given the looming deadline for candidates to file for office, the Supreme Court just couldn't wait for the Board to come up with a new plan on their own.  More recently, the Supreme Court completed its Opinion - a long document that looks at all the issues it had raised regarding the Board's original plan (thrown out by the Court), and its second plan (which was also thrown out.)  

Actually, that's an oversimplification.  The first plan, with a couple of changes, was essentially approved WITH THE EXCEPTION of some Senate seats in Anchorage.  So, the Interim plan for all 40 House seats, as understand this, is settled. 

Purpose of Monday's Meeting From The Supreme Court's Opinion

The Supreme Court's Opinion ended this way:

"IX. FINAL REMEDY

After the second remand, the Board adopted the Option 2 proclamation plan as the 2022 elections interim plan.240 The question of a final redistricting plan for the

[I've cut out footnotes]

decade remains. Having concluded that the Board engaged in unconstitutional gerrymandering in its initial final redistricting plan and that the Board then did so again in its amended final redistricting plan, our remanding for yet another redistricting plan may be questioned. Indeed, by clear implication article VI, section 11 authorizes courts to mandate a redistricting plan when, after a remand, the Board develops a new plan that is declared invalid.241 But we will remand out of respect for the Board’s constitutional role in redistricting.

Given that the Board adopted the current interim redistricting plan for its final plan deliberations — confirming the Board’s belief that the interim plan is constitutional — and given that Alaska’s voters have not had a chance to raise challenges to that plan in the superior court:

We REMAND for the superior court to order that the Board shall have 90 days to show cause why the interim redistricting plan should not be the Board’s final redistricting plan for the 2020 redistricting cycle:

A. Upon a showing by the Board of good cause for a remand, the superior court shall REMAND to the Board for another round of redistricting efforts; or

B. Absent a showing by the Board of good cause for a remand, the superior court shall direct the Board to approve the interim redistricting plan as its final redistricting plan, allowing any legal challenges to that plan to be filed in superior court in the normal course."  [Red emphasis added.]

Basically the court said:

1. You had two final options last year - Option 3A (which you adopted, but we found unconstitutional) and Option 2.
2. We told you to adopt Option 2 as the Interim Plan.  
3. You approved Option 2, thus implying you thought it was a constitutional plan.  [Though some Board members might say they had no choice given the time constraints.  If they hadn't approved it, I suspect the Court would have imposed it anyway.]
4. You now have 90 days to give a good reason why the Interim Plan should NOT be the final plan. (The Opinion was dated April 21, 2023.  So 90 days is just about July 21, 2023.)
5. If the Superior Court deems your objection to be a worthy objection, then that Court will remand (give back) to the Board, the task of further changes to the map.  
6. If you do not 'show good cause' for making further changes, the Interim Plan becomes the Permanent Plan
7. If you show cause but the Superior, and then the Supreme Court, reject your argument, the Interim Plan becomes the Permanent Plan.  
8. Once the Permanent Plan is in place, the public will have one more opportunity to challenge the plan.  My understanding of the various court rulings and the Board's public musings, all the 40 House seats and all but a few Anchorage Senate seats are already fixed. The period to challenge them was within 30 days of the original Proclamation Plan.  There were challenges to some other parts of the map and there were other parts of the map that no one challenged.  The only parts of the map that were still in dispute in May 2022 were a few Anchorage area Senate seats.  

Reading The Rules Carefully Is Always A Good Idea

When I was writing this post in my head, I was thinking the Board, on Monday, could either agree to leave things as they are (the Interim Plan becomes the Permanent Plan) or try to tinker with the map.  But rereading the Court's Final Remedy section of the Opinion, the first step is to 'show cause' and get the courts to agree there is cause before anyone is authorized to adjust any Anchorage Senate seats.  

What Cause Might The Board Show?

I don't see any cause that the Board could put forth.  But I'm not an attorney and there are always undetected cards they seem to be able to pull out of forgotten statutes and old cases upon which to make a claim.  

Here's how I see it:

1. The Superior and Supreme Courts have both agreed that the Interim Plan was Constitutional.
2. The Board, by approving the Interim Plan last May, implied they saw it as Constitutional. (They aren't supposed to approve a plan they don't think is constitutional.)

So the Board would be hard pressed to argue the plan isn't constitutional.

At that point, what else could they argue?  That it's constitutional, but they have a better plan?  I think it's too late for that.  

In its rulings about the Eagle River and Skagway Senate pairings, the supreme court discussed the concept of 'taking a hard look' at public testimony.  It ruled with the superior court and against the Board on this ground in Eagle River because the Board violated another constitutional requirement of districts

"specifically for unconstitutional political gerrymandering." (Court Opinion, p. 43)

However, in the Skagway case it ruled against the superior court ruling on 'taking a hard look' at public testimony, because

". . .if public comments merely reflect preferences for district boundaries without implicating substantive redistricting requirements, drawing district boundaries based on demonstrated substantive redistricting requirements and not the “weight of public comment” likely would not violate the hard look requirement. We nonetheless note that a Board’s failure to follow a clear majority preference between two otherwise equally constitutional legislative districts under article VI, section 6 may be evidence supporting a gerrymandering claim."

But the court ruled that House Districts 3 and 4 were unconstitutional based solely on its “weight of public testimony” approach to the hard look analysis. Because the court otherwise agreed substantive redistricting requirements were satisfied and no salient problems were raised that the Board failed to consider, we reverse the court’s invalidation of House Districts 3 and 4 and its accompanying remand to the Board." (Opinion, p. 43-44)

It would seem that same logic would be applicable here.  Just because some Board members might prefer different pairings, that's not good enough to tamper with an already constitutional map.  The Board isn't exactly 'the public.'  However, in this situation, if the Board wants to protest against Senate pairings that the courts and the Board have already agreed are constitutional, it would seem to be up against a similar obstacle the public is up against if it "merely reflects preferences for district boundaries without implicating substantive redistricting requirements."

Furthermore, the only (true) reasons the Board majority might want to make changes, as I see it, would be to try to give Republicans some advantage they don't have with the current plan, or to mess with the Democrats, by creating new Senate pairings which would force Democratic incumbents to run against each other.    

Why do I say that?  

1.  There are only a few districts, as I understand this, that are still in play.  

1. At this point, all 40 House districts are set.  They've been approved and the time for the public to challenge them is over.
2. The only districts that could be in play now are a couple of northeast Anchorage Senate seats.  I posted the map below and incumbent lists in my previous post, but it's worth looking at again.  

I've circled the Senate seats that could possibly be in play.  The House seats can't be changed, 

they can only be paired differently to create different Senate seats.  Below are the incumbents 

of the House and Senate seats.  I'd note these are the district numbers in the Interim Plan.  

House Seats	Senate Seats
17 - Zack Fields - Democrat	I - Loki Tobin - Democrat
18 - Cliff Groh - Democrat	J - Forrest Dunbar - Democrat
19 - Genevieve Mina - Democrat	K - Bill Wielechowski - Democrat
20 - Andrew Gray - Democrat
21 - Donna Mears - Democrat
22 - Stanley Wright - Republican

2.  Why are these the only ones in play?  Because the rest of the map was approved.  The only changes were to pair the two Eagle River house districts into one Senate district.  That left district 18 an orphan and it was paired with downtown district 17. And an orphan South Anchorage district. If they do any changes it would be to the Senate pairings in the circle - and maybe with a ripple effect beyond - because everything else was locked down and approved.  (District 9 was also an orphan district, when the two Eagle River districts were paired, but I haven't even considered that the Board might want to mess around with that district.) (Actually, my description suggests the court changed Map 3B.  In fact, they adopted Map 2, the map the Board did not choose.  So these were the pairings on that map.)

3.  As you can see, the Senate seats in this area are held by Democrats.  And the six key House seats are held by five Democrats and one Republican.  

4.  The Board majority argued long and loud, but short of actual facts or data, that JBER, the military base shouldn't be paired with 'liberal' downtown. 

"The Board cited no evidence, aside from its own speculation, that JBER is a community of interest; in any case, there was no showing that the House district encompassing the populated portion of the military base as a whole would tend to share political preferences more closely with an Eagle River House district than with the downtown Anchorage House district. We thus reject the Board’s argument that concerns about JBER justify splitting Eagle River."  (Opinion p. 105)

In fact, the Board had already put  JBER in a house district with much more liberal Government Hill and other north and northeast Anchorage neighborhoods.  

Edited from Elections page to fit in one image

Note:  This was a ranked choice vote.  Most, if not all of Franks' votes had Groh as second choice.  Also, only 6% of the registered voters on JBER even voted.  

In the 2022 House District 18 house election, the Democrats got 55% of the vote and the Republican got 44%.  HD 18 voted for Democrat Mary Peltola for US House and for Democrat Zak Fields for state Senate.  

So all the arguments that Board members Marcum and Simpson made about how terrible it would be to combine the JBER district (as they called District 18) with liberal downtown was hot air.  They'd already put JBER into a House district that was more liberal than the Base.  And that elected a Democrat.  

5.  But they may think that pairing House District 22, which did elect a Republican to the state House, with their so called JBER district (18) would result in a Republican Senate seat.  And so they may want to try to do that.  This would also mean finding other Senate pairings for the orphaned House seats - 18 and 21, which aren't contiguous, so it would force even more changes.  

6.  But the District 22 Republican only won by 72 votes out of 3700 votes.  Not really a GOP stronghold.  And with the electoral reality of District 18 (the one including JBER) as a strong Democratic district.  The resultant Senate seat would still be held by a Democrat. 

7.  But the other new Senate pairings that pairing 18 with 22 would force, they could force a two or more Democratic Senate incumbents to run against each other.  

8.  But this would all be so transparently partisan gerrymandering again that neither the superior nor the supreme court would accept it.  

9.  They only reason the Board majority might do something like this would be brazen shamelessness.  After all with Trump and Santos and DeSantis as models and the rest of the Republicans either supporting them or at least staying quiet, this would not be a big step for the Alaskan GOP to take.  

It wouldn't cost them anything, and there's the possibility it would work.  

10.  But I think it's just too obvious.  Even if Marcum and Simpson were willing to try this, I suspect the third Republican on the board, Chair John Binkley has more integrity than that.  He's had time to think this over and see it would merely waste even more public funds.  While he went along the first rounds, now it's pretty clear that the courts won't support this.  

11.  And their 'cause' also needs to show why any new plan is worth the disruption to voters and elected officials having to adjust themselves to new electoral districts.

12.  I'd also draw your attention to these words in the court's "Final Remedy" quoted above:  

"Indeed, by clear implication article VI, section 11 authorizes courts to mandate a redistricting plan when, after a remand, the Board develops a new plan that is declared invalid.241 But we will remand out of respect for the Board’s constitutional role in redistricting."

The court is saying, "We have the power to simply mandate a plan.  But out of respect for the institution of the Board (not necessarily for this particular Board) we'll give the Board one more shot to do this right."

That's my take on what will happen Monday.  There could be some other scheme Randy Ruederich has hatched for the Board to try.  But ultimately, the courts will be looking very carefully and I don't see any justifications the Board could make to oppose making the Interim Plan the Permanent Plan that the courts would accept.  

But even if the Board votes to make the Interim Plan the Permanent Plan, the public will still have thirty days to challenge it in court.  But this wouldn't be on the State's dime, and with the Board joining the superior and supreme courts, it would take some ingenious soul to find a loophole here.  

 

Stewart Rhodes, Witness At David Eastman Trial Found Very Guilty [UPDATED 5/8/23]

Exhibit 1:  Alaska Constitution Article XII

§ 4. Disqualification for Disloyalty

No person who advocates, or who aids or belongs to any party or organization or association which advocates, the overthrow by force or violence of the government of the United States or of the State shall be qualified to hold any public office of trust or profit under this constitution.  (emphasis added)

Exhibit 2: Head of Texas House General Investigative Committee on why a Republican member should be expelled from the House for having sex with an intern (from Austin-American Statesman):

"The expulsion of a fellow member is a level of punishment we don't take lightly," [Republican Rep. Andrew] Murr said to House members. "It's not meant to punish the member. Rather it is intended to protect the integrity and dignity of this legislative body and to provide accountability to everyone who works and serves in this building."

[UPDATE May 8, 2023 - Texas State Rep. Bryan Slaton resigned today.]

Exhibit 3:  Below - link to and excerpts from the Sentencing Memorandum for nine Oath Keepers after conviction of multiple crimes related to Jan. 6, 2021.   

Tying the threads together:

A.  Alaska state House member David Eastman is a life member of the Oath Keepers.   Its leader, Steward Rhodes was convicted this week of, among other things,  

". . . the jury found through its guilty verdict, that Rhodes led a conspiracy to use any means necessary, up to and including the use of force, to oppose the lawful transfer of power from President Trump to President-Elect Biden. Numerous co- conspirators testified that Rhodes’ repeated messages urging forcible resistance to the election results are what caused them to join the attack on the Capitol on January 6." 

B.  A lawsuit filed after the November 2022 election against then reelected, but not yet sworn in, Rep. Eastman by one of his constituents charged that he should not be sworn in because his membership in the Oath Keepers violated the state constitution provision cited above [Exhibit 1].  See ADN Dec. 6, 2022

The trial judge found that Eastman belonged to such an organization in violation of the Constitution, however, the judge also ruled that the First Amendment of the US constitution trumped Article XII Section 4.  

C.   Steward Rhodes was a key witness for Eastman in the trial, testifying electronically while in custody.

This past week Stewart Rhodes, the head of the Proud Boys, was convicted of a number of charges relating to his organization of and promotion of the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.  The prosecutors are arguing that he be sentenced to 25 years, by far the longest sentence of any Jan 6 defendant so far.  

Below are excerpts from the sentencing memorandum from the prosecutors to the judge - for Rhodes and the eight other Oath Keepers who were convicted with him.  

The first excerpt is the opening of the memorandum dealing with the group as a whole.  The second excerpt is a couple of pages the begins the 20 page justification for Rhodes' sentencing recommendation which begins at page 81.  (The whole document is 183 pages, so you can see Rhodes takes up a good portion.)

I offer this to remind the Alaska Legislature who their colleague is.  He has a life membership in this organization which he very easily could have ended, but chose not to.  

Excerpt 1:

"GOVERNMENT’S OMNIBUS SENTENCING MEMORANDUM AND MOTION FOR UPWARD DEPARTURE

These defendants were prepared to fight. Not for their country, but against it. In their own words, they were “willing to die” in a “guerilla war” to achieve their goal of halting the transfer of power after the 2020 Presidential Election. As a co-conspirator recognized, their actions made these defendants “traitors.”1

Using their positions of prominence within, and in affiliation with, the Oath Keepers organization, these defendants played a central and damning role in opposing by force the government of the United States, breaking the solemn oath many of them swore as members of the United States Armed Forces. To support their operation, they amassed an arsenal of firearms across the Potomac River and led a conspiracy that culminated in a mob’s attack on the United States Capitol while our elected representatives met in a Joint Session of Congress. Two juries found all nine defendants guilty of participating in this grave conduct. These defendants are unlike any of the hundreds of others who have been sentenced for their roles in the attack on the Capitol. Each defendant therefore deserves a significant sentence of incarceration."

Excerpt 2:

"A. Stewart Rhodes

Rhodes led a conspiracy to oppose by force the lawful transfer of power following the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. He exploited his vast public influence as the leader of the Oath

[Table of Penalty Enhancements here]

Keepers and used his talents for manipulation to goad more than twenty other American citizens into using force, intimidation, and violence to seek to impose their preferred result on a U.S. presidential election. This conduct created a grave risk to our democratic system of government and must be met with swift and severe punishment. A 25-year (300-month) sentence is compliant with the Sentencing Guidelines and necessary to satisfy the factors this Court must consider under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in imposing a sentence.

All of these counts group. Accordingly, the total adjusted offense level for Rhodes would be the highest of the offense levels for the three counts, which is 33.

The government also submits that an upward departure of six levels is warranted under Note 4 for the degree to which Rhodes’ offense conduct “was calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct.” U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4, cmt. n.4. And Rhodes deserves no credit for “acceptance of responsibility.” This would bring the defendant’s offense level to 39, for a recommended sentence of 21.8 to 27.25 years (262 to 327 months) of incarceration. The government’s recommended sentence of 25 years (or 300 months) of incarceration is just above the mid-point of that range.

a) Additional Factual Support for the Specific Offense Characteristics

The relevant conduct of Rhodes’ co-conspirators caused and threatened to cause physical injury to the law enforcement officers protecting the Capitol on January 6 and substantial damage to the building. It is appropriate to apply Section 2J1.2(b)(1)(B) simply for the relevant conduct of the conspirators he led. But there is more.

The evidence at trial established, and the jury found through its guilty verdict, that Rhodes led a conspiracy to use any means necessary, up to and including the use of force, to oppose the lawful transfer of power from President Trump to President-Elect Biden. Numerous co- conspirators testified that Rhodes’ repeated messages urging forcible resistance to the election results are what caused them to join the attack on the Capitol on January 6. See, e.g., 10/18/22PM Tr. at 4099 (testimony of Jason Dolan that Rhodes’ words constituted a call “to take up arms and fight back”); messages “regalvanized” him to “resist the fraud” and to come to D.C. on January 6 prepared to fight against “[t]he corrupt elements in the government that were allowing the election to proceed, and obviously leftists and extremists and whoever else was in the way”); 1/3/23PM Tr. at 2556-57 (testimony of Caleb Berry that he believed, based on the messages of Defendants Rhodes and Meggs, that he and his fellow Oath Keepers had a duty to “defend the Constitution” by “fight[ing] against the federal government if I had to,” because “[w]e needed to act or we would die”). And a preponderance of the evidence shows that Rhodes ordered his co-conspirators to join in the attack on the Capitol, both directly and indirectly. Indirectly, Rhodes sent his followers knowing words of approval of the riot, like his message that “the founding generation -stormed the governors mansion in MA . . . . They didn’t fire on them, but they street fought. That’s where we are now. Next comes our ‘Lexington.” Directly, Rhodes spoke on the phone with Meggs moments before Meggs led Stack One to breach the Capitol. Gov. Ex. 1500. Accordingly, this Court can and should find that Rhodes, through his offense conduct and that of his co-conspirators, caused and created a risk of injury to others and damage to property."

Message to the Alaska legislature:

Rep. Eastman acknowledged membership in the Oath Keepers, acknowledged his continuing membership in the Oath Keepers, and that he was on the Capitol grounds on January 6 (though he did not enter the Capitol).  He has not announced that he has cancelled his membership in the Oath Keepers.  In fact, Stewart Rhodes was a key witness in Eastman's December trial.  

Eastman's membership is in clear violation of the Alaska Constitution Article XII, Section 4.  

Keep in mind the words of the Texas Investigation Committee Chair, Rep. Andrew Murr:  

"'Rather [the purpose of expulsion] is intended to protect the integrity and dignity of this legislative body and to provide accountability to everyone who works and serves in this building.'"

I'd also note that Article II, Section 12 gives the Alaska legislature the power to expel a member with a 2/3 vote.  The limits on the judge in Eastman's trial do not apply here.  

§ 12. Rules

The houses of each legislature shall adopt uniform rules of procedure. Each house may choose its officers and employees. Each is the judge of the election and qualifications of its members and may expel a member with the concurrence of two-thirds of its members. Each shall keep a journal of its proceedings. A majority of the membership of each house constitutes a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel attendance of absent members. The legislature shall regulate lobbying. [emphasis added]

I realize that there are reasons both the Republicans and the Democrats in the Alaska House feel it might be in their best interests to leave Eastman in the House.  I realize that minor compromises must often be made to pass legislation.  But harboring a member who is a member of an organization that tried to overthrow the US presidential election, and a supporter of its leader, who was convicted of multiple crimes related to Jan 6, is not a minor compromise.  

Integrity of the legislative body is also important.  Doing the right thing only when it doesn't possibly threaten your own best interests is NOT integrity.  

[I'd note that the Texas House has not yet voted to expel Rep. Rep. Bryan Slaton as I post this, nor can I find any indication that he has resigned.]  

Tackling Alaska Supreme Court Redistricting Opinion

 

The first Supreme Court order regarding the 2010 Alaska Redistricting Board cases was issued on March 25, 2022.  It confirmed some of the Superior Court's decisions - mainly the Eagle River Senate seats - but not others - Valdez and Matsu complaints (though it agreed with them on the Cantwell appendage) and Skagway complaint.  The Board incorporated the Court's recommendations except in the case of the Eagle River Senate seats.  They offered a new map which also split the Eagle River house districts into two different Senate seats.  

Another on May 25, 2022 that ordered the Board to adopt Plan 2 as an Interim Plan so that candidates for the 2022 elections would know what districts they were in.  The court rejected the Board's new Eagle River Senate seat split and ordered the Board through the superior Court to approve plan 2 (which combined the two Eagle River house seats into one Senate seat.)

"IN THE MATTER OF THE 2021 THE STATE OF ALASKA REDISTRICTING CASES" was issued on April 21, 2023.  

I've been slowly plodding through the Opinion.  I'm not an attorney, but I have been following the Board and the subsequent court proceedings closely since December 2020.

In this post I want to simply describe the process I'm using to review what the justices said and the implications for future redistricting boards - particularly the 2030 Board.  In an academic paper this would be called the methodology section, though that's probably to generous a term for what I'm offering here.  I'm briefly explaining how I'm going about this.  

Step 1:  Quickly go through the text to see 

• what issues they covered
• what decisions they made about the current plan and the Board 
• (to remand the case through the Superior Court to the Board and have the Board either approve the Interim Plan as the Permanent Plan or tell the Court why it shouldn't be the Permanent Plan and offer alternatives.  
• to clarify that after approval the public still has the opportunity to challenge it)

Step 2:  Using the Court's headings, create an outline of the plan (which you can see here)

Step 3A:  Read through the Opinion more carefully with the Outline alongside and mark things that seem important on both the Opinion and the Outline.  Here are some examples of pages I marked up.

Okay.  This is not intended to be a tease.  But this is taking a while and I want to show you why.  Issues are raised in one section and then, sometimes, in another.  And maybe this intro, will make the final post(s) easier to understand.  Probably wishful thinking.

Step 3B:  As I did this, I also started to draft notes about what I think might end up being important.  These are tentative notes which I hope will become clearer (to me)  as I write them and then go back to the opinion to check if there are other comments that support or challenge what I've written.  

I call these Step 3A and 3B because I did them more or less at the same time, but they are different activities.  For example, here are some of my tentative notes (3B): 

"There seem to be several different kinds of issues

1. Procedural legal issues that seem to relate to how the court makes decisions, but don’t seem to set precedents (other than legal procedural ones in case of a challenge) for future redistricting boards to take careful consideration of.
2. Clarifications of past court decisions which will be important to future Boards  - These are the key issues I’m looking for and hoping I understand correctly
1. Partisan Gerrymandering
2. Public Participation and degree to which it should be considered by the Board - meaning of 'hard look'
3. Clarification of the related terms:
1. Socio-economic Integration
2. Communities of interest
3. Politically salient class
4. Equal protection
5. Kenai Peninsula neutral factors test.
3. Reasoned Decision making - Board didn’t show reasoned decision-making for splitting ER"

Step 4:  This is still ahead of me.  I need to expand my notes on the important issues and then try to look at all the ways the court discussed each issue.  When they said it applied.  When they said it didn't.  When they offered similar concepts and distinguished between them, etc.  

Step 5:  Review my previous post(s) which discusses the legal issues that, given the Board's actions and their attorney's public advice, I thought needed to be clarified by the Court and see which of my concerns were addressed.  

Step 6:  Try to take all those notes and create a post (and now I'm thinking several posts, maybe different posts on different issues).  I'm also thinking I need to talk to some lawyers about this as well.  

Why does this matter? 

Future Boards need to know what the ground rules are for creating Alaska house and senate districts so they can create maps that future courts will find proper and legal.  And they might even avoid future litigation.  

For example when I pointed out to the 2010 Board attorney Michael White that it appeared that some of the districts appeared to be political gerrymandering, he smiled at me as though I were a little dim, and said, no maps have ever been thrown out because of gerrymandering.  

And I suspect that some of the Board members may have heard similar stories.  

But one thing that is clear from the Courts' 2022/23 rulings is that gerrymandering is unconstitutional in Alaska.  Will that stop attempts to gerrymander in the future?  Probably not.  But Boards will have to cover their tracks better than this Board did when they do gerrymander.  

This year, Board attorney Matt Singer took the Board into executive session to explain redistricting law in the Constitution, constitutional convention, and past court cases.  Michael White did that session in 2011 in public and I think that Singer used a pretty broad interpretation of attorney-client privilege to justify briefing the Board privately on these issues. We don't know what he told them.  I'd note that the Superior and Supreme Court agree.  

But we do know that Singer's mantra throughout the process was "All areas within a Borough or City boundary are Socio-Economically Integrated."  The Court is clearly saying in this decision that while that is technically true, there are other similar, but different concepts - like 'community of interest' - that also have to be considered, even inside of a single Borough.  

Ideally, I can come up with a guide to the rules for future Boards and for citizens that will be useful in 2030.  I would hope that others would do the same thing, because I may well be missing things or misinterpreting them.  

Supreme Court Redistricting Decision Is Still Being Written - What I'd Like To See Them Address

 It's been nine months since the Supreme Court first ruled on the Alaska Redistricting Board.  That was a relatively short opinion which just answered the most immediate questions - was the latest plan acceptable and if not what needs to be done?.  They left themselves until later date to write up their reasoning for the decisions they made.  

The Alaska Court system suspends the pay of judges who don't complete their written decisions within six months of the trial..  But the Supreme Court is a little different because there isn't just one judge.  The judges who sat on the case must all agree or complete their dissenting opinions.  The Court's clerk explained to me that a draft is written and circulated to the judges.  If there are changes, the six months clock is reset.  

The Redistricting decision is no longer time sensitive.  Given that the Court hasn't issued their decision suggests to me that the last Proclamation Plan will be the plan for the rest of the decade.  If not, they needed to let the Board know that early enough to make adjustments for the 2024 election.  If there were going to be any changes, they would be limited to a few Anchorage Senate seats at most.  So, I could be wrong, but I suspect the Courts longer, explanatory decision will leave the current Proclamation plan in place.  

The decision they are currently writing will be for the 2030 Redistricting Board.  They are taking their time, I assume, so the next redistricting board will have the clearest possible guidelines for what they should be doing and should not be doing when they divide the state into 40 House districts and 20 Senate Districts.

I've discussed some of the key outstanding issues in a Previous post.  I'm repeating part of that post here.  I've made some changes and added part 4.

Some things the Court ought to answer:

1.  Explain what appears to some as a contradiction between past rulings that said everything within a Borough boundary is considered Socio-Economically Integrated (SEI) and their finding this time that Senate pairings in Anchorage were political gerrymandering.  Those two findings are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but since the Board's attorney's mantra was "everything within a Borough is SEI" based on previous Court rulings, the Board majority seemed to think that then they could pair any two contiguous house districts within the Municipality of Anchorage, and it would be fine. (Contiguity being the main legal criterion for a Senate pairing.)  Aren't things like race, economics, political leanings part of Socio-Economic Integration? Why then are factors like race, economics, and political leanings  within a single Municipality  indicators of political gerrymandering?  That needs to be explained.  And maybe the past rulings about everything in a Borough being SEI should be adjusted to reflect the differences within a Borough as populous as the Municipality of Anchorage.  Here's a post I did looking at past rulings about SEI.

[UPDATED Sept 4, 2022:  Maybe this is better focused:  I'd like to see the Court explain how they differentiate the criteria used to determine political gerrymandering and the criteria used for Socio-Economic Integration (SEI).  If Board Member Marcum hadn't mentioned that ER would have gotten an extra Senate seat, would the other characteristics of the two paired house districts been irrelevant?  At one point in the Supreme Court hearing there's an interaction between Board attorney Singer and Supreme Court Justice Warren Matthews [not to be confused with Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews or Board attorney Matthew Singer] on terms like 'communities of interest,' and 'equal protection.'  It would be nice if they could explain clearly the different concepts that Attorney Singer discussed and how the Court distinguishes between the idea that a Borough, by definition, is SEI, but, as Justice Matthews pointed out, there are differences in communities of interest within the Borough of Anchorage.]

2. Address the issue of geographic contiguity.  While the House districts paired in the revised map were technically contiguous, the borders that were touching were in unpopulated and roadless mountain areas.  While that 'connected' the two districts physically, the communities in those two districts were geographically far apart (relative to the population of Anchorage) and not really sensible political units. 

"Auto-contiguity" came up as a concept.  That 'auto' refers to cars - can you drive from one part of the district to another without leaving the district?  This was an issue in the Valdez/Mat-Su case and in the Eagle River Senate pairings. 

 I understand that being contiguous in large, roadless rural districts will sometimes require those rural Senate seats to have much less ideal connections between communities.  But in urban areas where there is much greater population density, it seems more than reasonable to consider contiguity as a continuum from "more to less," than an "either/or, yes/no," evaluation.  It was clear that the Board majority paired HD 22 and HD 9 with such an unusable border for political reasons.  The Hickel Decision tell us that

"In addition to preventing gerrymandering, the requirement that districts be composed of relatively integrated socio-economic areas helps to ensure that a voter is not denied his or her right to an equally powerful vote."

In urban areas, extreme contiguity such as we had, should also be an indicator of possible gerrymandering,  particularly when much more natural contiguity alternatives are available.  

3.  Explain why the Supreme Court disagreed with Judge Matthews' finding that the Board needed to pay more attention to public testimony in the Skagway case.  Did they disagree with his reasoning on the Board's need to justify why they were making a decision that was contrary to the overwhelming public testimony?  As I understand it, they basically said, it didn't matter since the district met the criteria for a district.  

4.  The State Constitution says that Board Members should be chosen without regard to political party.  This has rarely been the what actually happens.  And in this case, the Governor picked three Board members who were not only Republicans, but were highly partisan Republicans who, in the end pursued maps that were clearly politically gerrymandered.  Budd Simpson even testified that he was selected for the Board because there are many Republicans in Southeast.  The Court did not really deal with this clear violation of the Constitution by the Governor in selecting Board members.  But perhaps it was on their minds when they said the Board was guilty of illegal gerrymandering with some Anchorage Senate seats.  It would be very helpful if the Board set some standards for dealing with such partisan choices by those given the power to choose Board members. If they don't, they are essentially saying that that part of the Constitution is unenforceable.  

5.  There was a request from Calista plaintiffs that ANCSA boundaries be found acceptable as local boundaries for the Board to use making their maps.  This makes some sense in situations where those boundaries connect villages (water districts, schools, roads).  But the for-profit Native corporations are just that: profit making corporations that have a lot of power.  We wouldn't want corporations, say like Conoco or Monsanto, to have their own corporate political districts.  I think the Native Corporations have the burden of proof here that they are sufficiently different, in ways that matter to elections, that it would be okay. Or the Court could identify which ANCSA boundaries might be permissible and which might not.  Would making a district that exactly matched the boundaries of a Native Corporation be legal?  By refusing to accept Cantwell into the larger 'Calista' district, the Court suggests probably not.  More clarification would be helpful.  

6.  Also on hold has been the decision about whether the Board has to pay attorney fees for the Girdwood plaintiffs. 

Trying To Make Sense Of Eastman Trial

I'm just not as deep in the Eastman trial as I've been with other trials I've covered, say, most recently the Redistricting trials.  I heard part of Day 3 and most of Day 4.  Monday, Steward Rhodes may or may not be a witness.  As I understand it, he's in Federal custody and not in control of his time.  

So take my comments as preliminary musings.

For those unaware of this trial, one of Rep. Eastman's constituents has challenged the state for allowing Eastman to run for office because the Alaska  constitution prohibits members of organizations that advocate overthrowing the government running for public office.  

"Article XII – General Provisions

§ 4. Disqualification for Disloyalty

No person who advocates, or who aids or belongs to any party or organization or association which advocates, the overthrow by force or violence of the government of the United States or of the State shall be qualified to hold any public office of trust or profit under this constitution."

Eastman is a founding and life member of the Oath Keepers.  The Division of Elections said they can't make that kind of call and now it's in the courts for a determination.  The trial is being fast-tracked so a decision can be made before the legislature in convened in January.  

Matt Acuña Buxton has been live Tweeting the trial and you can get a blow by blow here.

Here are two critical Tweets he posted that outline the basic two questions and the judge's thoughts on those questions after the plaintiff's case was made:

As Judge McKenna has pointed out, the test is simple and straight forward: 

Is Eastman a member of the Oath Keepers? 
Have the Oath Keepers ever advocated or taken part in efforts to overthrow the government?

— Matt Acuña Buxton (@mattbuxton) December 15, 2022

Day 4 of the Eastman trial will be underway soon. More Eastman witnesses on the agenda.

Biggest development from Day 3 was Joe Miller's motion to cut the trial short. Judge ruled that a jury would, given a most favorable view of plaintiff's evidence, disqualify Eastman.#akleg

— Matt Acuña Buxton (@mattbuxton) December 16, 2022

The plaintiffs had experts who basically had studied domestic terrorism and cited numbers and talked in detail about the Oath Keepers, their by-laws, their leader Stewart Rhodes and evidence that came up in his trial and other Oath Keeper trials.  

There were two Eastman expert witnesses.  One, Guandolo, is ex military, ex-FBI, and kept diverting the discussion from Oath Keepers to "the real terrorist threats" like BLM, Antifa, etc. who he said are funded and directed by the Chinese Communists.  Right win terrorists were not an issue in his mind.  He also thinks Islamist terrorists are the biggest threat to the US, but I'm not sure if he said they were funded by the Chinese too.  

He was at the Capital on Jan 6 and it was peaceful.  The people who went into the Capitol were invited in by the police. 

The plaintiff's attorney got him to acknowledge that he's been a friend of Eastman's since they attended some far-right training sessions together.

The other witness, Michael Nichols, sounded sincere, though what he said was hard to believe.  The January 6 rally at the Capitol was peaceful, friendly, more like a tailgate party.  He also said that Oath Keepers are people who defend the Constitution and uphold the law.  

I didn't feel the plaintiff's attorney did enough to challenge these witnesses. While the second witness sounded sincere and may have been, how would he square with what he saw (he admitted he arrived late) with the footage we saw in the January 6 hearings?  There were a lot of people there in a lot of places.  And I can believe a bunch of like minded folks heeding the former presidents call to come to Washington, felt good being among so many people who felt like they did.  But it also means that people could easily have seen peaceful demonstrators in one place and time, while there was violence in other parts at other times.  

I was also taken by how sure both the witnesses were of their beliefs, even if they were not mainstream beliefs.  There are lots of people who have strong, out-of-the-mainstream beliefs.  Some of them are actually right.  It's why everyone needs to study epistemology - the field of philosophy that examines how people verify what is true.  

One person suggested the plaintiff's attorney let the two witnesses talk on and on because he wanted the Judge to see how crazy they were.  We'll see if that was a good strategy.  At one point - and I can't find it now - Judge McKenna said there were two points to prove:

Meanwhile I would also mention that Joe Miller, the defendant's attorney, while staunchly advocating for his client, is also respectful of the judge, the process, and the plaintiff's side.  

Matt Acuña Buxton has been live Tweeting the trial and you can get a blow by blow here.

Here are two critical Tweets he posted that outline the critical two questions and the judge's thoughts on those questions after the plaintiff's case was made:

As Judge McKenna has pointed out, the test is simple and straight forward:

Is Eastman a member of the Oath Keepers?
Have the Oath Keepers ever advocated or taken part in efforts to overthrow the government?

— Matt Acuña Buxton (@mattbuxton) December 15, 2022

Day 4 of the Eastman trial will be underway soon. More Eastman witnesses on the agenda.

Biggest development from Day 3 was Joe Miller's motion to cut the trial short. Judge ruled that a jury would, given a most favorable view of plaintiff's evidence, disqualify Eastman.#akleg

— Matt Acuña Buxton (@mattbuxton) December 16, 2022

How Wisely Did The No Constitutional Convention Campaign Spend Its Money?

The Alaska Constitution requires a ballot measure on the ballot every ten years, asking voters whether there should be a new constitutional convention.  This year Alaska held the sixth such election.  

Those pushing for an election had two main goals:

1.  To make abortion illegal by either cutting out the Constitution's privacy language, adding new language that would outright ban abortions and/or say the privacy section doesn't cover abortions.

2.  Make the process for choosing judges more political so they could get judges who will not interpret the privacy clause to allow abortions.

There were any number of additional far right goals that they would love to tamper with if they got the chance.  

The measure lost decisively on Tuesday.  Mail-in, absentee, and questioned ballots are likely to make the No vote even higher and there's no way they could change the outcome.  

 

An Anchorage Daily News article today tells us:

"Defend Our Constitution dominated spending 80 to 1.

They recently reported spending $4 million and raising $4.7 million. The donations came mostly from Outside organizations like the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which is based in Washington, D.C. and has been described as a left-wing dark money group.*

Convention YES spent about $50,000, usually from small contributions from individual Alaskans, allowing them to make small ad purchases."

So, how effectively did both sides spend their money?  It's hard to know.  But since we've been voting on this question every ten years now since 1972, we can at least look at the margin of victory for the NO vote over the decades:

Alaska Constitutional Convention Question (1972)
Result		Votes	Percentage
No		55,389	65.49%
Yes		29,192	34.51%

From Ballotpedia

Alaska Measure 1 (1982)
Result		Votes	Percentage
No		108,319	62.93%
Yes		63,816	37.07%

From Ballotpedia

Alaska Constitutional Convention Question (1992)
Result		Votes	Percentage
No		142,735	62.70%
Yes		84,929	37.30%

From Ballotpedia

2002 was 72% No;  28% Yes.  [This image from Alaska Division of Elections because I couldn't find the 2002 election from Ballotpedia.]

Alaska Ballot Measure 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
No		179567	66.59%
Yes		90079	33.41%

From Ballotpedia 2012

Alaska Ballot Measure 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		62,985	30.15%
No		145,937	69.85%

From Ballotpedia   2022   [These numbers will change when all the mail-in and absentee ballots are added in.]

So, the highest NO vote has been 72% NO in 2002.  The lowest No vote was 62.7% in 1972.  

I'm guessing they could have spent $2 million and still defeated the measure soundly.  Probably $1 million.  The extra $2-3 million could have done the state a lot more good spent on the governor's race and a few of the state legislative races.  

I suspect a lot of money was wasted in this campaign.  Sometimes you don't know, but in this case we have ten years of election results suggesting Alaskans aren't interested in a Constitutional Convention.  

*I'd note that "has been described as a left-wing dark money group" is just troublesome language.  Use of the passive voice allows you to say something happened without saying who did it.  "Has been described as" could be pinned onto nearly any phrase.  And 'dark money group' is a short hand cliche that means 'bad'.  I'd bet half the readers would have trouble giving an accurate definition and they certainly wouldn't all define it to mean the same thing or in a way that would accurately describe the Sixteen Thirty Fund.  

"The Only Way" To Make Sense Of Sen. Hughes Questionably Logical Pro Constitutional Convention Commentary

I've been resisting writing a post on whether Alaskans should vote to have a constitutional convention.  I listened to a debate between former Assistant Attorney General Libby Bakalar and Senator Shower and resisted.  But today's ADN commentary arguing for a convention was the straw that broke my resistance.  

[For non-Alaskans, our state constitution requires us to vote every ten years on whether to have a constitutional convention.  Since the Constitution was ratified, we've never voted yes.  But this year far right Republicans are pushing this as a way to get rid of the privacy provision which the Supreme Court has used to keep abortion legal in Alaska, and to change the very rational way we select judges among other things.]

So let me talk about a few things. (I could do more, but you'll get the idea fairly quickly.)

1.  The title

COMMENTARY

A constitutional convention is the only way to fix Alaska

Shelley Hughes

That's the headline.  I don't know that Rep. Hughes wrote it or the Anchorage Daily News editors wrote it, so take my comments with that in mind.  

Anyone who starts out saying there is only one way to fix something has already exposed themselves as an uncreative and rigid thinker.  There are always different ways to fix something.  Some very focused mechanical problems - like a backed up toilet - may have relatively few options.  But something as complicated as the whole State of Alaska, certainly has lots of different ways to be "fixed.'   And, note, she doesn't actually tell us what parts are broken and need to be fixed.  A constitutional convention is not the first thing that comes to mind as 'the solution', and probably not to most Alaskans minds. (Though we will learn next week whether this is true or not, at least for Alaskan voters.)

2.  Opening confusion.  She begins by imploring us:

"Alaskans, I respectfully implore you to recognize that the flood of paid advertisements you’ve been hearing about a state constitutional convention may not be telling you the whole story — and dare I say is “spinning” the story to protect the power and wealth of some who believe they would benefit more from your “no” vote."

This is a very confused sentence.   It's doesn't make grammatical sense. And, I'd note, unlimited Outside money is ok when it's oil interest money advertising for a GOP cause, but not when the other side has all that money.  

"the flood of paid advertisements you've been hearing about a state constitutional convention"

Does she mean a "flood of ads we've been hearing about"?   Or is 'about' connected to "a state constitutional convention."  As a blogger who writes a lot, I'm guessing this is the result of editing the original sentence without going back and reading whether it still makes sense.  

She then adds into this convoluted sentence something about spinning the story to protect the power and wealth of people who want you to vote no.  

Well of course, the 'no' side is telling a story to get you to 'vote no' because it's in their interest. 

Just like she's spinning a 'yes' argument to get us to vote yes, because it's in her interest.  

I'd note that Vocabulary.com says 'implore' suggests desperation.

"The word implore is often used to describe an urgent request made out of desperation. A man on death row might implore the governor to grant him a last-minute pardon."

And later in this Commentary she tells us why she's desperate - the No side is outspending the Yes side (her side) 100 to 1.  

3.  36 Questions.  Most of the commentary is made up of 36 questions.  (No I didn't count them, but I used the search function to tell me how many question marks there were.).   These questions, as you might imagine 

• "may not be telling you the whole story"
• " are “spinning” the story to protect the power and wealth of some who believe they would benefit more from your “no” ["yes"] vote."

They are all phrased with the very condescending school teacher structure of "Are we...?"  This is how some people talk to children.  Are we hungry today children?  Do we know what day it is today?

Question #1:

"Are we going to realize before we vote that more than 230 state constitutional conventions have been held in our nation successfully, peacefully, without upending state government and industry, without disrupting state economies and without constitutions being thrown out and rewritten, without extreme amendments passing voters?"

Let's briefly look at those '230 state constitutional conventions.'  A Cambridge University Press article published June 2022 tells us there were actually 250:

"From the 1770s through the 1970s, the 50 states held nearly 250 constitutional conventions, many of which brought about important changes in governance.

"Working from this list, I identify 77 of these conventions that were called to create inaugural state constitutions. Another 50 conventions were called for reasons stemming from the Civil War, including conventions called to secede from the Union and make necessary changes in state constitutions, then rejoin the Union and make state constitutional changes required as part of Reconstruction, and then later reverse changes adopted during Reconstruction. Another 41 conventions were called not at the instigation of legislatures but rather through automatically generated conventions or referendums or councils of censors or federal courts."

So the vast majority were:

• For the state to originally draft their constitutions*
• To secede from the US during the Civil War and then to rejoin the US after the Civil War make changes during Reconstruction and the reverse those changes.  All, according to Hughes, "without upending state government and industry, without disrupting state economies and without constitutions being thrown out and rewritten, without extreme amendments passing voters."  Really? Not even seceding from the US?  Not even setting up Jim Crow constitutions?  Really?

From the National Conference of State Legislators website, we learn:

"Nine states drafted new documents during the turbulent years between 1964 and 1975. Only two states have adopted new constitutions since then: Georgia in 1983, and Rhode Island in 1986.

Alabama is often mentioned when the idea of a constitutional convention comes up. The state’s current document dates to 1901 and at 376,000 words is about 80 times the length of the original U.S. Constitution, making it by far the longest and most amended of state constitutions. Amendments make up about 90 percent of it. Many local government functions are established by the constitution, and it often takes an amendment proposed by the Legislature to make changes to policies affecting a single county, or even a single town." 

So, it isn't a happy story of 230 states willy nilly calling conventions and having kumbaya conventions.  And conventions stopped happening, for the most part, in the 1970s.  And the state that has amended its constitution the most is Alabama.  Now there's a stellar role model for Alaska.  

A related set of questions from Hughes:

"Are we aware that in the more than 230 state conventions that have been held in our nation that Pandora’s box was not opened, that not a single worm escaped a can? That only sane and reasonable amendments were adopted?"

How do 'we' know this?  Just because she says so?  Not a single worm escaped?  How about the Civil War?  Maybe we should look carefully at all the changes to the Alabama constitution.   Actually Former Louisiana state senator Tony Guarisco wrote: 

"The 19th-century racist constitutions of the Bourbons and their 1921"crazy quilt" successor were embarrassments at best. Between 1922 and 1973, a constitutional revision by amendment produced 536 changes to a document that became virtually incomprehensible. Louisiana's law schools expended little or no effort to teach useless or inferior legal authority."

While Guarisco may not be unbiased, he was involved in one the Constitutional rewrites and probably has a better take on this than Sen. Hughes has.

Question 2:  (I'm not going to go through all 36 questions.  Just a few.  So this is the second question from Hughes' list that I'm going to address.)

"Have we processed the fact that the yes side only has donations from individual Alaskans, not the millions from outside ultra-liberal organizations like the opposition? And that the no side is outspending the yes side by 100 to one? That this is a David vs. Goliath battle?"

I haven't checked these facts out, but articles do confirm that the NO campaign is vastly outspending the YES campaign, and that they have a large donation from the same Outside group that supported Ranked Choice elections.  But it ignores the many Alaskan organizations - unions, fisheries groups, Native Groups - that oppose having a convention.

What I want to address here is the David and Goliath comparison.  In the Biblical tale, Goliath was bigger than David.  And Goliath was the bad guy.  David was the good guy.  Well, Senator Hughes here makes the argument that the NO group is bigger (has more money) and then slips in the assumption that the NO group is also the bad guy and that YES group are the good guys.  But she hasn't proved that at all.  Sometimes the stronger guy is also the better guy.  

She reinforces this at the end of the commentary: 

"Much is at stake. Root for David; vote yes."

Question 3:

"Do we realize that the voters elect the delegates by district and therefore the delegates will reflect the values of Alaskans statewide?"

This is actually one of the murkiest parts.  We've just gone through a very contentious redistricting board process.  Exactly how many districts will there be?  Who will set the boundaries for the districts?  The Alaska legislature is elected from districts.  Why would the convention be more harmonious than the legislature (which Hughes implied in previous questions couldn't do the job)?  And why wouldn't the urban centers dominate the rural areas?  [Yes, I just gave you a bunch of questions, but they weren't rhetorical ones like Hughes' questions.  They seek answers.]   I haven't found any documentation on how these delegates would get picked, or even how many there'd be.  The Voter Pamphlet only asks us vote whether to have a convention or not.  It doesn't tell us any more detail than that.  

OK.  That's enough.  You get the picture.  I'll reiterate.  From my perspective the YES folks want to have a convention for two main reasons:

1. They are frustrated because the Alaska Supreme Court has interpreted the Privacy section of the Alaska Constitution as guaranteeing the right to abortions.  So reason one is to change the Privacy section of the Constitution and they want to add language to prohibit abortions.  
2. They want to change the very rational way the Constitution sets up for picking judges so the conservatives  have more political control of the judges.  

And there are other things they would change if they had the chance, but I think these are the two most critical ones.

If you haven't already voted, be sure to vote No on Proposition 1 that calls for a constitutional convention.  

*I'm not sure either why 50 states would have 77 constitutional conventions to draft their original constitutions.  Perhaps some were rejected the first time round and they had to start again.  And territories, like Puerto Rico, have drafted constitutions but haven't been accepted as states yet.  (Alaska and Hawaii had their conventions prior to becoming states.)