By DAVID EASTMAN
Sept. 29, 2026 – It wasn’t until late on the night of May 20, that the regular legislative session finally came to an end. It was the 121st day. The final day of session is when special interests often cry the loudest and pressure on legislators reaches its peak.
Every two years, after the dust settles, we get to find out which portions of the Alaska Constitution gave way to political expediency that year, and which portions still remain intact.
You may remember, on the final day of the previous legislature — in 2024 — House legislators forgot themselves and claimed to pass five bills into law after the midnight constitutional deadline had already passed.
That attempt earned all five bills an immediate veto by Gov. Dunleavy. It wasn’t that he opposed the bills themselves, but that the precedent of legislators passing bills after the constitutional deadline was beyond the pale. In Alaska, legislators have more than enough power as it is, without reaching around the Constitution to grab at more.*
You may also remember from the final hours of that legislature that House legislators were not the only ones to forget themselves that day. Nineteen minutes before midnight, the Senate went even further by attempting to pass into law six separate bills with a single vote (Senate Bill 189).
The move was such an affront to the Constitution that Sen. Bert Stedman rose in the Senate to publicly condemn it, and Senators Stedman and Lyman Hoffman initially refused to vote either way on the bill. For my part, I shared similar warnings when the vote took place in the House.
See: Legislators Crossed the Line in Passing Senate Bill 189
Unlike the bills voted on after midnight, legislators were more strategic when it came to passing SB189. They ensured that at least one of the six bills crammed into SB189 was a bill that the governor desperately wanted. When the Department of Law determined that SB189 was unconstitutional, Gov. Dunleavy responded by refusing to publicly sign it into law, but he also stopped short of formally vetoing it. Under Alaska law, if the governor does not veto a bill like SB189, it goes into law without his signature, threatening to overturn decades of precedent and rendering Art II, Sec. 13 of the Constitution a dead letter.
With the help of a very capable attorney, Joe Geldhof, I filed my first lawsuit (Eastman v. State of Alaska). Together, we invited the court to uphold the Constitution or join the other two branches of government in publicly acknowledging that Art. II, Sec. 13 (the provision in our Constitution that limits each bill to a single subject) has now completely given way to political expediency.
After a seven month legal battle, the court rewarded our efforts by agreeing with the Department of Law that SB189 was indeed unconstitutional. Seeing the writing on the wall, and not wanting to lose any of the six bills, the legislature went back and passed the bills in SB189 as separate pieces of legislation.
For the moment, it would seem that Pandora’s Box is again closed. For the moment, legislators do not seem eager to keep voting past constitutional deadlines or trying to circumvent the governor’s veto by passing multiple bills with a single vote.
As he left the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin explained that the convention had produced “A republic, if you can keep it.” These days the emphasis falls squarely on “if you can keep it”.
In the final hours of a session, legislators are juggling countless priorities. Adherence to the Constitution is rarely one of them. Perhaps this is why more than 70% of Republican legislators joined 96% of Democrats in voting YES on SB189, despite knowing that it represented an abject surrender of constitutional safeguards. They knew that Dunleavy was unlikely to block it. They cracked the code on that by making sure it included a bill that would be politically difficult for him to veto.
Ultimately, in voting YES, they took part in a power grab forbidden by the Constitution.
I would be remiss if I left the impression that the outcome of a single lawsuit could reset the clock as though that step had never been taken. For legislators, it still remains easier politically to set aside constitutional safeguards than it is to vote NO on a popular piece of legislation. Most may never intentionally set out to flout the Constitution as much as simply be ok with not following it when it runs afoul of their politics. Therein lies the problem.
In a Republic such as ours, legislators are the ones principally entrusted with enforcing the Constitution when it comes to their own conduct. Let that sink in.
What happens when they choose not to? The governor can’t compel them to. No matter how egregious their conduct, the governor and attorney general are constitutionally barred from even filing a lawsuit against legislators. Treg Taylor once tried to. It didn’t go well.
Yes, all public officials in Alaska take an oath to defend the Constitution, but legislators are given unique tools with which to enforce that oath. The power to impeach public officials and to remove legislators from office is a power that only members of the legislature are able to exercise. The power to reduce or eliminate public funding on a project or activity is ultimately entrusted to members of the legislature. The power to criminalize conduct and to put forward amendments to the Constitution, these are tools entrusted to the legislative branch of government; not the courts, not the governor.
The governor doesn’t send troopers to arrest legislators when they thumb their nose at the Constitution and pass unconstitutional bills. The courts don’t issue arrest warrants and send out bailiffs when legislators vote to violate your constitutional right to due process or the right to bear arms in the Alaska Constitution. The practical reality of this often escapes the public.
When it comes to enforcing the Constitution on legislators, legislators answer only to themselves and to the voters at election time. Legislators are the only public officials who are specifically exempted by the Constitution from being arrested. For better and for worse, legislators are granted an exceptionally high level of public trust. When other legislators fail to act, and the public fails to weigh in at the ballot box, legislators effectively answer to no one. When legislators grow sufficiently accustomed to answering to no one, they begin passing bills after constitutional deadlines and attempting to do things like pass half a dozen bills with a single vote. District attorneys are one of the few other public officials who enjoy a similar level of public trust.
In an incident in New York, the District Attorney of Monroe County was caught driving 20 miles over the speed limit. What happened next was what made the video of her traffic stop go viral. She simply refused to pull over. Instead, she drove home, parked in her garage, and told police to get lost.
On video, she openly mocked the responding police officers, “Do you think I really care if I was going 20 miles over the speed limit?” In a rare moment of candor for a public official, she said the quiet part out loud: “I’m the DA….If you give me a ticket that’s fine. I’m the one who prosecutes it,” leaving no doubt as to what she intended to do with the ticket once police left her house. While she was being pulled over, she even called up the police chief (on camera) and asked him to tell his officers to “leave me alone”.
It is difficult to find clearer imagery of just how unconcerned politicians in Juneau can be about enforcing constitutional safeguards than District Attorney Sandra Doorley ignoring commands to stop, leading police to her house, and then casually walking into her house. Call it the swamp. Call it corruption. Call it the good ol’ boys club. It doesn’t much matter what you call it.
SB189, and the subsequent court case, highlight a very specific example of legislators abandoning the public trust and stepping outside the Constitution. There are others of course.
Under the Alaska Constitution, Alaska voters have the right to vote on new public debt at the ballot box. As a freshman legislator, I watched as legislators (the vast majority of them Republican) voted to ignore that right when they attempted to pass HB331 and $1 billion in new state bonds without allowing the public to vote. In a ruling that should have surprised no one, the Alaska Supreme Court found that it was manifestly unconstitutional.
Yet, only two members of the House Republican Caucus, myself and Rep. Mark Neuman, voted against it. We have a problem.
That problem has now metastasized to the point where a Republican legislator who consistently sides with the Constitution is now accused of being out of step with their fellow Republican legislators. They are. That is the problem. Before embarking on any project to restore public trust in the legislature we must first come to grips with how far into the swamp our legislature has already moved.
*While the Alaska Constitution permits as many as 242 days of regular sessions in a two-year period, the Texas Constitution limits its legislators to only 140 days in the same time period. State law, passed by Alaska voters in 2006, is also more generous than Texas, allowing legislators up to 180 days of regular sessions in a two-year period.
David Eastman: Rep. Andrew Gray has weaponized Alaska law against political opponents
David Eastman: We have already crossed the point of no return in Iran
David Eastman is a former Alaska House representative for Wasilla and a current candidate for House.
25 thoughts on “David Eastman: When Alaska lawmakers break the rules, who holds them accountable?”
Great article, David. Are you running for office this fall?
I received the majority of Republican votes in the last election and am running again so that Wasilla and Meadow Lakes voters can again have a legislator whose voting record they can be proud of. My legislator (Jubilee Underwood) has a terrible voting record and was rated the least conservative legislator in the Mat-Su. Of the many bills that Dunleavy vetoed during her first term in office, she voted for most of them. In order to get Democrats to put her name on a bill, she had to vote with them many, many times during her two years in office.
Short answer?
No one.
You may have forgotten that David Eastman was the most isolated, universally detested and ignored member of the legislature. Perhaps people will realize exactly why: HE TOOK HIS OATH OF OFFICE SERIOUSLY. But maybe they don’t want their legislators to do that?Eastman knew that certain popular things are unconstitutional, and that certain constitutional things are just plain bad law. He was paraded before the unethical “Ethics Committee” in as fine an example of “lawfare” as you can imagine, trying to exhaust his patience and resources. The Mat Valley conservatives will hopefully re-think his ouster.
There are less conservatives and small government republicans in his district. Since the decline of Anchorage, the very type of big government republicans and democrats whose liberalism brought about Anchorages decline and increasing government dependency they moved out to the valley (and elsewhere) to get away from what they voted for on Anchorage. Today’s Matsu region isn’t bright red like a tomato. It’s more like a deep red/purple Cherry
Many of those legislators who need to be held accountable are Running unopposed, and holding legislators accountable will take a couple years depends on how much work neighbors of the right get involved in their community councils to flip the councils first from left to right and how well they organize to run an opponent for the legislator incumbent.
My district will be sending leftist legislators to Juneau for awhile. thanks to Paul Bauer putting his name just to give another option other than the leftist legislator. He really should be a sitting council member too beside just being GOP district president
And this is why we need David Eastman back in Juneau. Remember Underwood said she was discussing public tax policy behind closed doors. We really do need to get rid of the bad ones.
I think Fmr Rep Eastman days serving in the legislature is complete. Very likely his district representative Jubliee will be returned to Juneau. Wasilla is not as Hard Red and Hard conservative as it used to be. There are more Big government Republicans and democrats moved into the district. The conservative and far right neighbors of Jubliee/Eastman district is lesser, the ones who sent Eastman to the legislature for several cycles . Eastman needs to find a new way to serve his district and community of Wasilla. I suggested go to his community council and work his way on to it. And bring another conservative friend.
While it was barely touched upon in the article, the people are who hold legislators accountable. While barley acknowledging it the former Representative makes a good point, voters hold the power. This can be seen by the fact that former Representative Eastman was one of the best Democrat tools in the Legislature and the voters decided that they wanted a Republican to represent them in a Republican district. Instead of someone who served the Democrats while gaslighting those who voted for someone claiming to be a conservative and who voted against conservative viewpoints meanwhile carrying water for leftists by providing advice on how to subvert conservative backed bills, the voters chose to hold former Representative Eastman accountable for the fact that his actions and his words never matched.
Your gaslighting is predictable Steve-O. When you run the numbers, it is easy to show that the majority of Republican voters in my district voted for David Eastman in the last election.
Your “Republican” champion Jubilee is only in office today because she picked up 73% of Kamala Harris’ voters (861 votes), which in a district like Wasilla was enough to put her over the top by 196 votes. Her voting record reflects that when she votes with Democrats to ban styrophome and for a most of the bills that Dunleavy vetoed.
Supporting that doesn’t make you sound very Republican.
David,
When you run the numbers you were held accountable for your record and you were voted out of office, no matter how you want to continue to lie to yourself or others. How many times did you vote against conservative bills, I lost count. How many times were you on the floor of the Legislature providing advice to Democrats to help sink conservative bills, I lost count. How many times was a Democrat controlled coalition installed because of you, was it your entire time in the Legislature or just the majority of the time? How many times were you the deciding vote on not paying the statutory PFD?
Nice try at deflection with the logical fallacy about styrofoam to wrap up your comment, it’s very fitting coming from you.
This is the Kool-Aid that Juneau has been spewing for the last ten years. You’ve been around longer than a day and should know it’s Kool-Aid by this point and should stop drinking it. But, watching you pivot from one lie to a completely different series of lies in two second flat, without apology, as you did above, tells everyone reading your comments all they need to know about your intentions.
Saw what? My second comment is directly in line with my first one. And it is noted that you have once again deflected and chosen to not answer any of the questions instead you attack while illustrating classic gaslighting behaviors. My intentions certainly are clear for all to see, and you’ve done your best to prove my point.
Don’t bother trying to change a mind with fixed ideas: it’s a waste of time. It’s obvious Steve-O-O-Oh would rather an elected official violate constitutional law than not be a partisan team-player. People who think like this are the reason why we continue to suffer the bi-partisan morass that serves as our politics and they advocate constitutional oath-breaking and other associated corruptions, all in the name of “us” vs “them”.
Sarvagy,
Actually I’d rather have my elected officials be honest with the electorate, but before they can do that they need to be honest with themselves. A guy who can’t be honest with himself or the electorate certainly cannot be a person who follows the constitution.
God save Alaska . The sheep are multiplying.
David Eastman asks a question every Alaskan ought to be asking: When lawmakers break the rules, who holds them accountable?
It is a good question — but I believe the answer is broader than the article suggests.
The Alaska Constitution does not leave legislators accountable only to themselves.
Article II, Section 12 gives each house the power to expel one of its own members by a two-thirds vote. But that is not the end of the matter. Article XI, Section 8 says plainly:
All elected public officials in the State, except judicial officers, are subject to recall by the voters…
That means the people themselves possess a constitutional remedy. We do not necessarily have to sit quietly until the next election when an elected official commits conduct that meets Alaska’s legal grounds for recall.
That distinction matters.
The Constitution begins with the principle that political power belongs to the people. Government officers exercise delegated authority; they do not own it.
And every Alaska public officer takes an oath before entering office to support and defend the United States Constitution and Alaska Constitution and to “faithfully discharge” the duties of that office.
We have seen the same principle elsewhere in Alaska law.
Consider official bonding.
Certain executive officers are specifically required by statute to furnish surety bonds before exercising the authority entrusted to them. Where an official bond is legally required, Alaska law even provides a mechanism by which an injured party may proceed against that bond for an official wrongful act or default.
That does not mean AS 39.05.050 automatically applies to legislators — its language is directed at executive department officers and subordinate officials.
But maybe it should apply!
It demonstrates something important that should not be lost:
“Public office comes with enforceable duties.”
An oath is not decoration.
A statutory bond is not decoration.
A constitutional limitation is not decoration.
And a public officer cannot simply convert a delegated governmental power into personal authority merely because enforcement is inconvenient.
The remedies differ according to the office. An executive officer may be subject to statutory bonding requirements and liability associated with that bond.
A legislator may be disciplined or expelled by the legislative body.
An elected legislator remains subject to the constitutional recall power of the people.
Legislative conduct can also be examined under Alaska’s ethics laws.
And when legislation itself violates the Constitution, the judiciary may review that law in a proper case.
So I would turn Representative Eastman’s question around: “Who holds the lawmakers accountable?”
Sometimes the Legislature. Sometimes the courts. Sometimes statutory enforcement mechanisms.
But ultimately, under Alaska’s Constitution, *the people do.*
That is the part of the discussion we should never surrender.
We created government. We delegated its authority. We imposed an oath upon those entrusted with that authority.
And when that trust is violated, the constitutional question should never become: Who will permit us to hold them accountable?”
The better question is: What remedy did the Constitution and laws already reserve to the people?
Article XI gives us one very clear answer — recall. The public servant remains the servant.
The people remain sovereign.
“Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.”
— 2 Corinthians 3:17
Liberty Ed Martin
There is a reason that no member of the legislature has ever been recalled in Alaska, and it’s not because some of them haven’t deserved it at times. It is simply due to the law that legislators passed implementing the constitutional right to recall. Legislators have made that right particularly difficult to exercise in the case of legislators in the Alaska House of Representatives.
House members serve two year terms. State law requires, not one, but two rounds of signature gathering to recall a legislator. It also blocks submitting the first round of signatures until more than 6 months after the legislator was elected. By the end of six months they have already completed their first session in Juneau.
The same law also forbids submitting signatures to recall a House legislator in the last 6 months of their term of office. The law very effectively ensures that you cannot submit signatures during most of a House legislator’s two-year term. Once you have submitted the first round of signatures you still need to complete the second round of signatures and survive the various court challenges and then still have enough time to actually conduct the recall before the next election. If you do all that, the legislator may have already completed their second session by the time the recall is carried out, so the legislator has already cast all of their votes for their term of office before they are recalled.
It’s a nice way of protecting incumbents, which may be why legislators wrote the law that way.
For more info see: https://www.elections.alaska.gov/petitions-and-ballot-measures/recalls/
Would you also give the reasons and circumstances the FBI investigated and moved on to DOJ to insure some of the legislative persons in Murkowski administration went to prison? Accountability was a portion of the reasons, I believe.
The arrests in the 2000’s were before my time and I don’t have any first-hand knowledge of the reasons behind them. That said, corruption has plagued Alaska politics for decades, and does make the headlines from time to time.
We the people can only hold our legislators accountable if we have fair elections and I believe that voting has been rigged for a very, very long time. Aside from that, most of the “very conservative” legislators we have in AK at the moment are anything but that behind closed doors.
It is always easier to talk conservative than it is to vote that way, especially with a state Republican Party that rewards legislators who vote against the Republican Party Platform in Juneau, and punishes those few legislators who vote with the platform for “not getting along.”
Eastman, your last election was this year’s Primary and you trailed behind Underwood. You didn’t receive the most votes. You are referring about your 2022 election.
Don’t accuse another here for Gaslighting while you are guilty doing it yourself. Just calling a lie out when I see it. I detest liars and abusers including those perpetrating an abusive pattern learned in childhood, because they are kiss and before lying to others they lie to themselves first.
Your district still is home to many of the hard right and conservative principled neighbors who sent you to Juneau. But since you had been in Juneau, a small percentage of your district neighbors have moved out and sold homes picked up by new neighbors more government dependent or straight up leftists. Between you and Underwood they’d vote for Underwood.
Your district is not as hard right conservative as you and your supporting neighbors of your campaign enjoyed in recent years past. If you really want to return back into the legislature then you and your support will have to Fight like your life depends on your election because its no longer a comfortable seat for Ak conservatives.