The ADN editorial of Oct. 16, opposing the lawsuit to disqualify Rep. David Eastman from the Alaska Legislature on the basis of violation of the disloyalty clause (Art. XII, Sec. 4) of the Alaska Constitution, is the most illogical editorial to appear for some time. You argued that Rep. Eastman should not be disqualified in the court suit “when he hasn’t committed a crime.” But a violation of the disloyalty clause does not involve or require the commission of any crime.
The standard for holding public office that is set by the disloyalty clause is no different from the other minimum standards for holding office in Alaska that are set in the Alaska Constitution. A state representative must be over 21 years of age, a qualified voter and at least a three-year resident (Art. II, Sec.2). Section 5 requires that no legislator may hold any other office or position of profit at the state or federal level (Art II, Sec. 5). None of these minimal qualifications requires the “commission of a crime” before being triggered. Nor does the disloyalty clause.
You also argued that the dsloyalty clause is somehow suspect because it was included in the Alaska Constitution during the Joe McCarthy “red-baiting” era of the 1950s. But this historical tidbit is legally irrelevant, and makes the clause no less enforceable as a required threshold qualification for holding legislative office in Alaska.
Given the recent history of the attempted violent disruption of the U.S. Congress, such a concept may in fact have new life.
Finally, you argued that the disloyalty clause may violate the “free speech” protections of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. If that argument were a possibility, then the Eastman lawsuit should be in federal court. Clearly, an Alaska state court cannot hold as unconstitutional under state law a provision contained in the Alaska Constitution, which is presumptively constitutional because it is a part of the Alaska Constitution. This circular argument chases its own tail.
If there is any unconstitutional infirmity in the Alaska Constitution’s disloyalty clause, it would have to be found under the U.S. Constitution. This is not the present forum in which the legal fitness to hold legislative office is being examined in the case of Rep. Eastman.
— T. E. Meacham
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.