In Alaska, the unusual trial of an Oath Keeper-linked lawmaker begins

December 15, 2022 2:40 AM

This week in Alaska, a trial has begun that may test the provision of the Alaska state constitution barring persons who belong to groups that advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government from holding office. Representing residents in the politically conservative Matanuska-Susitna valley, Wasilla representative David Eastman has been a controversial member of the lower house of the Alaska legislature since 2017. Recently re-confirmed in his office by those voters, Eastman must first face a historically unusual challenge to his eligibility to serve another term.

Following a September 2021 data breach, a leaked membership list revealed Eastman's name on a list of "lifetime members" of the far-right Oath Keepers militia group, whose founder, Stewart Rhodes, was convicted in November of seditious conspiracy for his actions related to the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol. Eastman, who traveled to Washington and was present on January 6th, is not being charged with any specifically criminal actions that day, but rather faces a challenge to his eligibility to hold public office under Article XII, section 4 of the Alaska State Constitution ("Disqualification for Disloyalty") which says:

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.

The case is the first of its kind in Alaska. Eastman does not deny his membership in the Oath Keepers but contends that the group does not advocate the overthrow of the government.

posted by Nerd of the North (9 comments total)

I wonder if there are any other constitutions that call for the exclusion of elected officials who try to overthrow the government. Somebody should look into that.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 4:33 AM on December 15, 2022 [23 favorites]

When was this added to the Alaska constitution? Sounds like a McCarthy-era thing to me.
posted by Ampersand692 at 7:00 AM on December 15, 2022

@Ampersand692

Joseph McCarthy died a disgraced blowhard in 1957, after the end of the time of McCarthyism.

Alaska was admitted to the Union in 1959.

It seems highly plausible that the provision is an original one, and that it's there for the same reason why it was possible for McCarthyism to be a thing in the first place.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 7:13 AM on December 15, 2022 [8 favorites]

It turns out that "When was it made a disqualification for office in Alaska to be a member of a seditionist group?" has a knowable answer.

The provision is in Article XII of the Alaska Constitution, section 4. The page at the link helpfully notes that Article XII was amended once, in 1996, to change section 14.

Section 14 is a verbose passage of word salad that seems to purport to reserve a right for the State to ignore certain Federal laws.

Alaska the State has always hated subversion, and considered it a disqualification for positions of public trust.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 7:45 AM on December 15, 2022 [1 favorite]

Definitely Red Scare (50s version) related.
posted by sir_patrick_o'veal at 9:39 AM on December 15, 2022 [2 favorites]

The Michigan terrorists were sentenced today.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:33 AM on December 15, 2022 [5 favorites]

The idea that, in the absence of an overt act of insurrection from the individual in question, membership in a political organization could be disqualifying for public office is pretty clearly a troubling one, presenting significant and obvious potential for misuse.

The idea that a court should have the power to override the expressed will of the voters, who bafflingly chose to return Eastman to office just a month ago, while all this information was publicly reported and the case was waiting to be heard, is similarly troubling.

However, it's also pretty freaking problematic to have elected officials who show up at the US Capitol during a violent insurgency and in the company of other members of the same organization.

I'd much prefer this issue be decided on some other basis -- e.g. that the voters of Wasilla had elected to choose one of the other candidates on their ballot, or that Eastman was under scrutiny for actual culpability in overt acts rather than for membership in a group -- but the course it's running is over interesting terrain for argument at any rate.

Somewhat ironically, if Eastman is found ineligible to serve another term due to his Oath Keepers membership, that could actually increase Republican influence in the state legislature, as he has apparently been toxic enough in previous terms that he was kicked out of the (primarily Republican) minority caucus last year and continuing to exclude him would make it more difficult for conservative Republicans to organize a majority caucus in the legislature's lower chamber in the coming term, a problem that would likely not affect any theoretical replacement. (In the last legislative session, a majority caucus was formed by a breakaway group of moderate Republicans caucusing with the legislature's elected Democratic representatives.)
posted by Nerd of the North at 2:47 PM on December 15, 2022 [3 favorites]

Concluding the case, the presiding judge has found that Rep. Eastman can serve in the Alaska legislature:

The ruling found that Eastman is a member of the Oath Keepers, but that he “does not and did not possess a specific intent to further the Oath Keeper’s words or actions aimed at overthrowing the United States government.”

I'm conflicted, as I wrote before, as to whether membership (alone, in the absence of acts in furtherance of prohibited goals) in a group should be enough to invalidate eligibility for office but I'm not sure how this decision, which seems to want to straddle the position "yes, the organization does advocate the overthrow of the government" with "but the individual has not been proven to advocate that personally" fits with the language of the language of the Alaska constitution's Disqualification Clause ("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.")

It seems to my layman's understanding that if you're going to concede that the Oath Keepers have aimed at overthrowing the US government and that Eastman is a member, you've met the criteria outlined in the clause (whether that clause is a good idea or not.)

I suppose I ought to go seek out the full decision rather than rely on a newspaper summary..
posted by Nerd of the North at 12:44 PM on December 23, 2022 [1 favorite]

FWIW, I would summarize the ruling as holding that while the plain language of the Alaska Constitution would preclude him from serving, it can only do so to the extent permitted by the First Amendment freedom of association, which (under governing caselaw) would require proof of a specific intent to further unprotected conduct or speech.

I would imagine an appeal is likely, but the judge's reasoning seems pretty reasonable.
posted by Not A Thing at 1:22 PM on December 23, 2022 [1 favorite]