Rep. David Eastman’s First Amendment rights to free speech would not be violated if he were to be removed from office. His removal from office at this time is a direct consequence of him failing to disclose a prohibited membership prior to becoming a legislator.
The clause prohibiting him from holding office was in the state constitution well before he chose to run for office and by being a lifetime member of a prohibited group before he ran for office, he should have never been allowed to run for office in the first place. The clause does not attempt to prevent anyone from voicing an opinion contrary to the government, it simply states that you are not allowed to hold an elected office in Alaska while doing so. Clauses like this are standard fare in private industry, and as such, people who fail to disclose potential violations of company policy prior to being hired are generally fired on the spot once their new employer discovers the violation. Why should legislative employment be any different?
The question that should be asked here is whether Mr. Eastman knowingly violated this constitutional clause or simply failed to read the constitution.
— William Jarrett
Anchorage
Have something on your mind? Send to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Letters under 200 words have the best chance of being published. Writers should disclose any personal or professional connections with the subjects of their letters. Letters are edited for accuracy, clarity and length.