Advertisement. For information about purchasing ads, please click here.

Americans for Prosperity

Recall Rivera is a predictable result of Recall Dunleavy

On January 25, 2021, Superior Court Judge Dani Crosby delivered a blow to Alaska progressives when she ruled that the recall campaign against Anchorage Assemblymember Felix Rivera was lawful and could move forward. The Rivera recall campaign was a direct and foreseeable result of the Recall Dunleavy campaign that was launched against Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy (R – Alaska) in the summer of 2019.

The old karmic saying “you reap what you sow” is often true in politics. It means you should treat others as you wish to be treated because, someday, the others will be in a position to treat you the same way. Politicians are increasingly throwing this old wisdom to the wind. Then-Majority Leader Harry Reid ignored it in 2013, when he abolished the filibuster for judicial nominations for nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals. He was warned up and down that abolition of the filibuster for nominees to the Court of Appeals would mean Republicans would abolish it for Supreme Court nominees. And that is exactly what they did. In 2016, Democrats helplessly watched as Republicans, who had retaken the U.S. Senate and Oval Office, used the Democrats’ precedent to end the filibuster for judicial nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In February, the editorial board of the Anchorage Daily News wrote that the legal grounds cited by both recalls (Recall Rivera and Recall Dunleavy) were obviously not the true motivations of those advocating for them. That is undeniably true. In October of 2019 I published an opinion piece saying the same thing. To take just one example, Rivera is, in theory, facing a recall because he allowed seventeen people in the Assembly chambers despite a Covid-related EO limiting room occupancy to fifteen. It is lost on nobody that Rivera’s alleged violation is–at most–extraordinarily unimportant, and that the recall is overwhelmingly led and supported by people who opposed Covid restrictions in the first place.

Advertisement. For information about purchasing ads, please click here.

Advertise with Landmine

One part of Judge Crosby’s recent ruling stands out: why didn’t she cite or even mention the Alaska Supreme Court’s Order affirming that the recall campaign against the governor could proceed? It’s the most recent precedent for the legality of a recall and was cited in the briefing to the court.

The Alaska Supreme Court has only weighed in on the legal grounds for recall under the Alaska Constitution on three occasions:

  • Meiners v. Bering Strait School District (1984)
  • Von Stauffenberg v. Committee For an Honest and Ethical School Board (1995)
  • State of Alaska v. Recall Dunleavy (2020).

Superior court decisions in civil cases, including civil cases involving the legality of recall petitions, are governed by the law and decisions by the Alaska Supreme Court. In the legal world, Alaska Supreme Court decisions are “binding precedent,” meaning that superior courts must follow those decisions and are not free to disregard them.

The Alaska Supreme Court issued a brief order following briefing and argument on the legality of the petition to recall Governor Mike Dunleavy. This is typical. But, that brief order confirmed that the Court was upholding the superior court’s ruling that three out of the four grounds pushed by Recall Dunleavy were independently sufficient to institute a recall campaign. (The sole ground struck down by the superior court was Recall Dunleavy’s assertion that the governor’s line-item budget vetoes violated the separation of powers doctrine by precluding “the legislature from upholding its constitutional Health, Education and Welfare responsibilities.” The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed in its order that it was upholding all the superior court’s rulings).

So why didn’t Judge Crosby cite the Alaska Supreme Court’s most recent precedent in deciding the legality of the recall petition for Felix Rivera, despite it being cited to the Court and the Alaska Supreme Court clarifying precisely the grounds for recall it affirmed on appeal? The answer to that question depends on who you ask. But it is puzzling she did not once mention it, especially considering how recent it was and how much it related to the recall against Rivera.

The recall against Rivera is a predictable result of the Recall Dunleavy effort, which set a precedent for using the recall process to attack a political enemy. More broadly, it is a consequence of the ‘win at any cost’ mentality that now dominates American politics. It’s unlikely that Rivera would be facing a recall if Recall Dunleavy had not launched a statewide recall initiative and pursued it all the way to the Alaska Supreme Court. Recall attempts have also been made against Assemblymember Forrest Dunbar and Assemblymember Jamie Allard. More are sure to come in Anchorage and around the state. Think of the effect this will have on an already broken political process. Now, in addition to dealing with all of the challenges of being an elected official, getting recalled on dubious–if not patently absurd–grounds is now a realistic possibility for anyone and at all times. The proponents of Recall Dunleavy are reaping what they have sowed, and it’s just getting started.

Enjoy this article? Please consider making a donation to the Alaska Landmine. The Landmine is made possible by a team of Alaskans who work hard to deliver unique content you won’t find anywhere else. Your donations make articles like this possible. Thank you for reading!

Subscribe
Notify of
8 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jared L.
1 month ago

Really missed the mark on this one, Landfield. Huge difference between petty enemy targeting over 17 people in a 15 person meeting and Dunleavy specifically vetoing funds from the Alaska Court System to punish them for their decisions regarding abortion (to name just one of his transgressions). Lumping these together in this fashion is exactly why people insist that you’re a blogger, and not a journalist.

Dick Jones
1 month ago
Reply to  Jared L.

Actually it is you that missed the point of the whole article. It doesn’t matter the reasoning for the recall is legitimate or not. It is now a weapon that will be wielded by either side. There are other ways to deal with political transgressions that to waste time and money on a recall effort or continual impeachment.

Maureen Suttman
1 month ago
Reply to  Dick Jones

Interesting projection youngin’.

No it is not what will happen, as there are clear processes legally. It’s taking a bit, justice wheels are slow, but we are seeing the real threat to democracy Save Anchorage’s campaign in this is about.

Martin
1 month ago

If certain groups want to spend money on frivolous recall campaigns, it’s their first amendment right. Those judged valid by the public will advance. Initiative 2 will, hopefully, have it’s intended effect to bring more transparency to elections, including recalls.

Areal Bilk
1 month ago

Crosby’s lack is citation is a moot point. This case was going to be appealed no matter which way she ruled so neglecting to cite precedent makes zero difference.
Also… Alaska has a long history of recall attempts. Attempting to blame the Rivera recall attempt on the Dunleavy recall ignores dozens of past recall elections.

Last edited 1 month ago by Areal Bilk
Robespierre
1 month ago

There is a difference between accidently having 17 people in a room, versus Rivera intentionally ignoring a sitting member of the assembly pointing out that the Assembly was violating the rules, which is what the complaint actually states. If your Anchorage business was shutting down because of the COVID restrictions the assembly couldn’t be bothered with, you might understand why the two recalls are very much the same.

Ostrich Alaska
1 month ago

Whenever I hear about anything, I think about music and poetry. Anyway, the topic of recall cause me to recall these lyrics from R.A.P. Ferreira’s song “Dust Up” (off Purple Moonlight Pages): There was a census taken among the grand verbalizers There was a, um, a census taken among only the grand verbalizers And then the data was compiled, Necessarily crunched, meaning it was sorted In such a way one could understand, or at least make use of And by extension, give one license to imitate in understanding After the data was compiled, crunched There was a consensus among only… Read more »

Lance Wilson
1 month ago

Don’t agree with you Jeff on many issues, but your assessment of the “Recall Dunleavy” effect is absolutely correct.