Alaska Governor’s Plan to Use Executive Power Sparks Controversy

What is the plan?

Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy has proposed a sweeping plan to use his executive power to address the state’s fiscal crisis and constitutional issues. The plan, which he announced in his State of the State address on January 24, 2024, includes:

• Creating a new constitutional amendment that would set a new formula for the annual dividend payments that Alaskans receive from the state’s oil-wealth fund, known as the Permanent Fund.
• Issuing a series of executive orders that would implement a spending cap, reduce the size of government, and reform the state’s tax system.
• Calling a special session of the legislature to ratify his proposals and pass a balanced budget for the next fiscal year.

Dunleavy said his plan is a “bold and necessary” step to solve the state’s long-standing fiscal problems and protect the Permanent Fund for future generations. He also said he is willing to work with lawmakers and the public to refine his proposals and seek their support.

Why is it controversial?

Dunleavy’s plan has faced criticism and skepticism from various groups, including lawmakers, legal experts, and advocacy groups. Some of the main objections are:

• The plan would bypass the normal legislative process and give the governor too much power over the state’s finances and policies.
• The plan would violate the separation of powers and the checks and balances that are enshrined in the state’s constitution.
• The plan would reduce the public’s input and oversight on important decisions that affect their lives and livelihoods.
• The plan would have negative impacts on the state’s economy, public services, and social welfare.

Some lawmakers have said they are open to discussing the governor’s ideas, but they have also expressed concerns about the legality and feasibility of his plan. They have also questioned the governor’s motives and timing, as he is facing a re-election campaign this year.

What are the implications?

Dunleavy’s plan could have significant implications for the state’s future, depending on how it unfolds and how it is received by the public and the legislature. Some of the possible outcomes are:

• The plan could succeed in passing the legislature and becoming part of the state’s constitution, giving the governor more authority and flexibility to manage the state’s finances and policies.
• The plan could fail to pass the legislature or be challenged in court, leading to a constitutional crisis and a prolonged political standoff between the governor and the lawmakers.
• The plan could spark a public backlash and a grassroots movement to oppose the governor’s agenda and demand more democratic participation and accountability.
• The plan could influence the outcome of the governor’s re-election bid, either boosting his popularity among his supporters or alienating his opponents and undecided voters.

Dunleavy said he is confident that his plan is the best way to secure the state’s future and that he is ready to face the consequences of his actions. He also said he hopes that his plan will inspire a constructive dialogue and a collaborative effort to find solutions for the state’s challenges.