Ed Martin: A constitutional response to fear-based resource policy

By EDWARD D. MARTIN JR.

Suzanne Downing’s recent report on the Resource Development Council legislative briefing raises important questions about Alaska’s economic future.

But the remarks highlighted from Sen. Cathy Giessel and Rep. Zack Fields reveal a deeper and more troubling pattern: Alaska’s resource debates are increasingly framed around fear, reluctance, and false trade-offs—rather than the clear mandates of the Alaska Constitution.

Related story: Sen. Giessel warns gas line could bring prostitution, social upheaval as lawmakers preview 2026 agenda

That framing deserves a constitutional response.

 Social Fear Is Not a Constitutional Standard

Warnings that a major gasline project could bring prostitution, drugs, or social upheaval may sound prudent, but they are not a constitutional basis for policy. Alaska’s Constitution—particularly Article VIII—does not instruct lawmakers to avoid development because it might be difficult. It commands them to utilize, develop, and conserve natural resources for the maximum benefit of the people.

Social impacts are real. They should be anticipated and managed. But elevating fear over duty reverses the constitutional order. Alaska was not founded on retreat from opportunity; it was founded on responsible development paired with strong governance.

 Preparation Is the Obligation—Not Avoidance

Large projects bring challenges. They always have. Alaska has managed them before: oil at Prudhoe Bay, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, fisheries, mining, timber, and infrastructure development across vast distances and harsh conditions.

The proper constitutional response to potential social impacts is preparation—housing, workforce training, public safety, and local infrastructure—not legislative hesitation. Article VIII does not allow policymakers to substitute apprehension for action. The duty is to govern competently while advancing development, not to treat difficulty as disqualification.

 The Dividend vs. Services Is a False Choice

Rep. Zack Fields’ framing—dividends versus government services—presents a false constitutional dilemma. Alaska’s resource wealth is held in public trust. The Permanent Fund exists because Alaskans chose to preserve the value of their non-renewable resources for present and future generations.

That trust obligation is not satisfied by using Permanent Fund earnings as a default operating account for government, nor by pitting citizens against public services. The constitutional solution is not to shrink dividends, but to restore serious, lawful resource development so Alaska can support both essential services and the people’s share of their resource wealth.

Alaska’s Constitution Is Not Optional

What is missing from too many of these discussions is the Constitution itself.

Article VIII is not advisory language. It is mandatory. Alaska’s leaders are required—not merely encouraged—to develop the state’s resources in the public interest. When legislators frame development primarily as a social risk or fiscal inconvenience, they invert the constitutional hierarchy. Policy preferences cannot override constitutional commands.

 Lead With Law, Not Fear

Suzanne Downing’s reporting captures what legislators are saying. But Alaskans deserve a deeper question: Are our leaders governing in alignment with the Constitution they swore to uphold?

Fear-based narratives and zero-sum budgeting do not meet that standard. Alaska’s future depends on leaders who are willing to plan, build, and govern with confidence—guided first by constitutional duty, not by hesitation.

The Constitution already gave us the roadmap. It’s time we followed it.

Edward D. Martin Jr. lives in Kenai.