The ADN editorial board’s opinion (Oct. 16) that disqualifying David Eastman based on the Alaska Constitution’s disloyalty clause would set us on a dangerous path caused me to ponder alternatives. The court could ignore the constitution or voters could change the constitution. Are these not dangerous courses as well?
I think the bar for qualifications to run for public office is actually set a bit too low. We are voting in a surprising number of candidates, at every level, who don’t demonstrate a working understanding of the governing system in place. Their disruptive and obstructive behaviors instead demonstrate a self-fulfilling prophecy that “government doesn’t work.” There are legal mechanisms to correct problems in the system, but these impatient anti-government folks seem not to comprehend this, to the detriment of not only their constituents, but to the rest of us as well.
The editorial board minimized David Eastman’s conflict of interest in citing his supposed minimal level of participation in Oath Keepers, a self-described anti-government militia. If Eastman intended to uphold his oath to abide by the Alaska Constitution, he would remove himself from Oath Keepers.
— Jen Huvar
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.