Anchorage Superior Court Judge David Eastman, Wasilla Republican Rep., ruled that Wasilla Republican Rep. David Eastman is not in violation of the Alaska Constitution’s disloyalty section due to First Amendment protections for freedom speech.
Eastman could continue to serve in the Alaska Legislature, despite the decision being appealable. In November, Eastman was reelected.
A 49-page order was issued Friday morning by Judge Jack McKenna. It stated that the Oath Keepers, which are antigovernment militias by the federal government, “are an organization who have, through words, conduct, taken concrete actions to try to overthrow the United States Government by violence.”
This meets the criteria for disloyalty as set forth in Article XII Section 4 of the Alaska Constitution. It states that anyone who supports the overthrow of U.S. Government is prohibited from holding office.
The ruling does not end there. McKenna stated that the First Amendment must also be considered. “The court further finds Rep. Eastman is a Member of that Organization, but that he did not and could not have a specific intent or words to support the Oath Keepers’ actions or words aimed at overthrowing United States Government. Accordingly, the court finds that he does not have to be disqualified from holding office under Article XII Section 4.
This decision is in response to a lawsuit brought by Randall Kowalke (a Matanuska Susitna Borough resident), who challenged Eastman’s eligibility for office under disloyalty.
An ruling in Kowalke’s favor might have prevented Eastman taking office .
Goriune Dudukgian represented Kowalke at , a seven-day trial.
Although an appeal to Alaska Supreme Court was expected, Dudukgian stated that a decision regarding whether to appeal will not be made until after Christmas.
He said, “We have to make a decision quickly.”
Eastman didn’t respond to a request for comment via text, but he has been actively fundraising for legal defense. Eastman sent emails to his supporters soliciting donations. He suggested that he could spend up to $300,000. Friday night was scheduled for a fundraising dinner in Wasilla.
McKenna’s order was placed on hold while the appeal is heard at the Alaska Supreme Court. This means Eastman isn’t yet ready to assume office. January 17th will see the Alaska Legislature convene.
McKenna also represented the Alaska Division of Elections in the lawsuit. The final order did not address the issue of the division, except to state that the larger decision will resolve its role.
“The Division of Elections does not take a position on the merits of these allegations. According to the Court’s order, certification of the House District 27 elections will be delayed until another order is issued,” stated Patty Sullivan (communications director, Alaska Department of Law).
McKenna’s findings provide a new interpretation of Alaska Constitution’s disloyalty provision. This clause has never been tested in court before and goes beyond its plain language. This clause was created during the anticommunist Red Scare in the 1950s.
The clause was intended to target the Communist Party of the United States. It declares that just being a member is sufficient to make someone ineligible to run for public office in Alaska.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected speech and association in a higher degree than was intended by Alaska Constitution authors. McKenna incorporated those rulings.
He stated that the court held that Alaska’s disqualification from disloyalty clause should be interpreted in harmony to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
He stated that in order to have a person removed from public office by the disloyalty provision, there must be “knowing affiliation with an organisation possessing illegal aims and goals and a specific intention to further those illegal goals.”
This statement is based on , a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that affirms that nonviolent actions are protected under the First Amendment.
McKenna hinted at his ruling by requesting additional briefing mid-trial on the intersection between the disloyalty and U.S. constitutional amends.
Dudukgian claimed that similar Supreme Court decisions and other cases from 1982 are irrelevant because the case concerns Eastman’s qualifications and not his ability to join any group. McKenna disagreed.
He stated that even after a rational basis review, interpreting Article XII section 4 to ban a person’s office for mere membership of an organization violates The First Amendment.
He concluded that Oath Keepers intended violent action and overthrow the U.S. Government during the Jan. 6, 2021 rebellion at the Capitol. However, he also discovered that Eastman did no interact with the Oath keepers or support them during the insurrection.
Eastman did not interact with Oath Keepers or the leaders of the group before or during the insurrection. He also didn’t enter restricted areas around the Capitol during insurrection. The trial revealed.
“Based on the evidence at trial, the court doesn’t find that Rep. Eastman intended to assist the Oath Keepers with planning for January 6. McKenna stated that the court did not find Rep. Eastman intended to assist the Oath Keepers in planning for January 6.
The Alaska Beacon originally published this story. It is republished with permission.
