There’s a provision of the Alaska constitution that bars traitors from serving in government. Specifically, it provides that no one who “advocates, or who aids or belongs to any party or organization or association which advocates, the overthrow by force or violence of the government of the United States or of the State [of Alaska] shall be qualified to hold” public office. This possibly applies to state Rep. David Eastman of Sarah Palin’s Wasilla who was just reelected in November 2022.
Rep. Eastman is an acknowledged and unapologetic member of the Oath Keepers. The Anchorage Daily News notes the potential problem:
Nationally, a founder of the Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes, and a Florida chapter leader have been convicted of seditious conspiracy related to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol. A trial against four other Oath Keepers is underway.
If a key founder and leader of an organization has been convicted of a seditious conspiracy involving force and violence, what does that mean for other members of that organization? The legal language is pretty inclusive, stating that aiding or belonging to a seditious organization is sufficient to disqualify someone from holding public office.
Prior to the November election, a group of citizens led by Randall Kowalke went to the Alaska Division of Elections arguing that Eastman should not be on the ballot. They lost that case but are now appealing in Alaska’s Superior Court. The case, overseen by Judge Jack McKenna, got underway on Wednesday. McKenna will not allow Eastman’s victory to be certified until the loyalty provision is litigated in his courtroom.
Eastman was in Washington, DC on January 6, 2021, but he has not been accused of entering the Capitol or committing any crimes that day. The issue is strictly whether his membership in the Oath Keepers is sufficient, on its own, to disqualify him.
The situation would probably be easier to resolve if Eastman disavowed his prior membership, but he’s done the opposite in court.
Republican Rep. David Eastman said he believed he remained a member of the group, saying he had not heard anything from the Oath Keepers about his membership in some time. Eastman was asked if he had made any public statements that he was resigning or renouncing his membership, to which he replied: “I have not made such a statement.”
So, I think the question could turn on whether the organization (as an organization) has ever explicitly called for the overthrow of the government by force. Perhaps Eastman can argue about the present tense language in the provision, arguing that the Oath Keepers do not presently advocate a violent coup even if they briefly took that position between Election Day 2021 and Inauguration Day 2022.
The difficulty is that the Oath Keepers were part of an actual insurrection, so it doesn’t necessarily matter what they said or advocated. What they did ought to be sufficient to meet the standard.
Having said this, I don’t think that anyone who has ever been a member of the Oath Keepers should be barred from holding public office. There ought to be some demonstration that they were an active member, like Eastman, at the time of the insurrection. And if they weren’t part of the planning or operation of the Oath Keeper conspiracy, they should be allowed to disavow the organization, including by renouncing their membership and ending any dues payments.
So, in my estimation, Eastman should be denied his seat not because he is a former Oath Keeper but because he is a present one. That makes his future loyalty suspect, and that’s clearly what relevant provision of the Alaska Constitution is intended to address.
