JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — A state court judge on Friday allowed to maneuver to trial a lawsuit alleging that an Alaska lawmaker’s ties to the far-right Oath Keepers group disqualifies him from holding office.
Superior Court Judge Jack McKenna denied a request by Republican Rep. David Eastman to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Randall Kowalke, who was among the many individuals who earlier this yr filed challenges to Eastman’s candidacy with the Division of Elections. The division determined that Eastman, a Wasilla Republican, was eligible to run for reelection, but Kowalke’s attorneys argue the division failed to research Eastman’s eligibility under the so-called disloyalty clause of the state structure.
Kowalke’s lawsuit pointed to a provision of the structure that states that nobody who “advocates, or who aids or belongs to any party or organization or association which advocates, the overthrow by force or violence of the federal government of the US or of the State shall be qualified to carry” public office.
McKenna, in one among several orders Friday, said he interprets the clause as applying “only to unprotected association, speech and conduct” and would view the matter through that lens. Trial is slated to start Monday.
McKenna said Kowalke must show that the Oath Keepers “are a company that advocates concrete motion to overthrow the federal government of the US by force or that they’ve actually engaged in such conduct.”
Political Cartoons
Eastman won his race last month. McKenna previously ordered that certification of the race be delayed pending trial and further order from the court.
McKenna said Friday that a trial is crucial to resolve Kowalke’s claim against Eastman and to find out whether the division’s response to Kowalke’s challenge of Eastman’s candidacy was proper.
Eastman has said he was in Washington, D.C., that day but didn’t participate within the riot. Eastman has not been accused of any crimes.
McKenna said he has been presented with arguments urging him to contemplate whether barring someone from office under the clause is sensible and to contemplate the effect of applying the availability.
But McKenna said it is just not his place to “choose the wisdom” of the constitutional provision or to make policy.
“As a substitute, when a claim is filed implicating constitutional and statutory provisions, the court must interpret and apply the Alaska Structure because it was drafted by its framers and ratified by the people of this state,” he wrote. “The court must also interpret and apply the statutes passed by the legislature and signed into law by the chief.”
Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material will not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
