The People of Alaska vs. The Legislature
Part XII: The Path Forward
It is time to bring the PFD matter to a vote of the people; failing that, to replace the representatives who are blocking a vote; failing that, pursue every available remedy.
The PFD program has been a blessing to Alaskans for a generation. The legal, philosophical, economic, and social impacts of the PFD are profoundly favorable to the people, and yet our legislature is destroying it.
Building Our Case
Must Read Alaska is collecting testimony from around the state: How do citizens use or rely on the PFD for their essential needs? How long have you relied on the PFD? Submit your PFD testimony to Must Read Alaska via this form.
While our courts work hard to “get the law right”, they have gotten it wrong when it comes to the PFD. State law should comport with modern Federal equal protection cases, protect the people against private interests and plunder, and be based on evidence, not mere opinions. Justice Compton, writing for the majority in State V. Anthony (1991), stated:
“A dividend is not, generally, a source of income that individuals depend on to supply the basic necessities of life…It is an annual lump sum payment, and the recipients cannot know with certainty how much it will be in any given year.”
This is an unsupported opinion. Consider another statement from the court in Anthony:
“No constitutional provision elevates the status of a dividend entitlement to the level of a disposal of a state natural resource. While the existence of the permanent fund is protected under article VIII, section 2, of the Alaska Constitution, this constitutional provision does not entitle each resident of the state to a dividend from the fund.”
What constitutes a “disposal” of natural resources was not argued in Anthony. Secondly, substitution of a single word— “payment” for the word “entitlement” —alters the applicability of the conclusion. While the Constitution may not explicitly “elevate” or “entitle” a dividend, statutes and historic practice at the time contributed to this expectation, and do today.
Zobel ruled that the PFD is not a “basic necessity,” and the right to receive it is not a “fundamental right”. However, equal protection laws, at least in Alaska, appear to hinge partially on the degree to which an economic interest supplies a basic necessity of life. Evolving state-federal policy debate often touts benefits like health care or affordable housing as “basic necessities” equating to a fundamental right. If 77% of Alaskans used their PFD to buy housing and health insurance, would this influence the court’s perspective?
No caselaw challenges that natural resource revenue is the source of the Permanent Fund itself and the income subsequently earned from the fund. This means that any use or “disposal” of Fund income (as a natural resource derived asset) must meet two constitutional tests: 1) The “uniform application” test in Article VIII, Section 17; and 2) All assets must be utilized and conserved for the “maximum benefit of [Alaska’s] people” (Article VIII, Section 2).
Alaskans want to know: What binding authority exists defining the “maximum benefit of the people”? Is not today’s intentional co-existence of two conflicting statutes on the PFD direct evidence of legislative default and malpractice on this constitutional mandate?
The People vs. The Legislature
While our courts have applied “minimum scrutiny” to statutes effecting an individual’s right to a PFD, meaning it carries no more legal weight than one’s interest in unemployment compensation benefits, Alaskans disagree. Most believe the PFD constitutes recognition of this timeless principle: “All political power is inherent in the people. All government originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the people as a whole”.
The people cannot allow this preamble to become a platitude. We are talking about a simple royalty share of commonly held natural resources.
The Permanent Fund constitutes a trust relationship bound by these ideals, and possibly by Alaska Trust Law (AS 13.36,) that transcends a single legislature. What constitutes a binding trust with future Alaskans could be a fact-finding in law, or an evidence-based trial, perhaps resolved by a constitutional convention. Administrative actions over time convey intent. The creation of a perpetual, constitutionally-based trust fund means a fiduciary obligation exists to the people that supersedes the authority of any single branch of government.
Administrative and fiscal records establishing continuity of PFD practice from 1994 to 2016 are a matter of record. Since 2016, evidence of default abounds. Alaskans deserve to know why and how precedent was shattered.
The societal benefits of the PFD are so well documented as to validate the program as a model of global justice. Rise, Alaskans, to protect this great legacy from those who would plunder and destroy it! Rise, to assert your inherent power as the source of all governmental power.
Rise to the rights of citizens everywhere to a direct and modest share of their natural resources.
Rise to check the growing arrogance of power, of government itself and those within it who forget whom they serve. We are a democracy, and a nation of laws. Now is the time for Alaskans to demand that OUR interests, not those of the power-hungry few, be honored.
Rise in protest that our representatives refuse to honor a statewide vote on the PFD. If you disagree with the PFD, rise in protection of your neighbor’s right to vote. If you reject the right to vote, recognize the wisdom of honoring the freedom to choose. The PFD is the single biggest fiscal policy decision facing this state; it is the politicians—not the people—who fear the truth.
The Bottom Line
The time has come: Alaskans must invoke their power under Article I, Section 2 of our constitution and act. Our legislature has proven incapable of protecting the PFD, despite the overwhelming evidence of its merit and popularity. The dividend program is a model of distributive justice that can enlighten the world. Litigation is necessary and will seek to reaffirm the trust-based obligation the state has to the people of Alaska. It is time to secure the PFD for Alaskans today and every Alaskan into the future.
Full Series
Part XII brings the series to a close. Now, Must Read Alaska will focus on collecting PFD testimonies, building the people’s case against the legislature, and educating Alaskans about their right to a full Permanent Fund Dividend.
Check out the full series The Great Debate: The People of Alaska vs the Legislature by Jon Faulkner and Michael Tavoliero below:
- Part I: Inflation-Proofing: Where’s the Problem?
- Part II: Follow the Money
- Part III: The 49 Forward Plan Takes the Permanent Fund Backwards
- Part IV: The PFD and the Search for Wisdom
- Part V: Ghost Busting: Dispelling Anti-PFD Phantoms
- Part VI: The People’s Possession: Alaska’s Ownership of the Permanent Fund Dividend
- Part VII: The People’s Constitutional Covenant and the Quieting of Title
- Part VIII: The Constitutional Intent of Alaska’s Resource Wealth
- Part IX: The Constitutional Trust Relationship: The State as Trustee, The People as Beneficiaries
- Part X: The People’s Right to the PFD Based on Quiet Title
- Part XI: How Historic Citizen Reliance Constitutes Legal Possession
- Part XII: The Path Forward
The State of Alaska made a promise to the residents of Alaska. That is a binding contract in the eyes of the law in Alaska, unless something has changed in regard to that legally since 1982. In my college contracts class, this was the case at the time.
The State of Alaska has failed to keep its side of this agreement, and in fact, has taken steps to undermine it and usurp the funds that rightfully belong to the people.
Manda Gershon. What “promise” did the Alaska government make to the residents of Alaska? What does the “promise” say, and where is it written down? What “binding contract” are you referring to? A contract is generally a quid pro quo arrangement, where I agree to do something if you agree to do something else. Like when a contractor agrees to build a deck to a certain standard, and the homeowner agrees to pay a certain price. They both sign the contract.
The legislature passed the PFD program in 1980, and then passed a revised PFD program in 1982. What the legislature passes, the legislature can change. I suppose if the legislature passes a bill that says they will lease a certain piece of state land that has several big buildings on it for 25 years to a company that wants to set up a business, and then they both sign a contract, then the state is obligated to lease it for the full 25 years. No such time-span agreement was made with anyone regarding the PFD.
There should never be a ballot measure where all the citizens can directly vote to put free money, from the Alaska state fund, into their pockets.
Such a decision should only be made by the people’s representatives in the legislature, where they are well versed with budget details, can receive input from many citizens, and can carefully deliberate, so as to maintain a balanced and responsible budget, that provides enough for essential services and necessary infrastructure.
In the legislature, the vote of each representative is visible in the public record, and that representative must be able to explain their vote as being wise and prudent. Whereas with a ballot measure, each citizen votes in secret, and does not have to explain or defend anything, even if the way they voted, was just to stuff as much free money into their pockets, as they could.
There is nothing wrong with accepting a dividend from the government, as long as it is surplus money, and the budget is balanced.
We are a democratic republic, not a mobocracy, where masses of uninformed people can vote with emotion, whim, and unchecked narrow self-interest.
You kidding right?
We gave up mineral rights under our own properties so that EVERYONE gets his share.
Not to create pigy bank for legislature to steal it.
I’ve been advocating a class-action lawsuit since walker first proposed seizing most of the PFD for State funding after Weilichowski (sorry, sp?). We need this NOW, and take it to SCOTUS if needed. Our State supreme court, politicized as appointments to judgeships are, cannot be trusted to do anything but preserve Weilichowski. Perhaps we can take down the judicial council as well as preserve the PFD for the people.
Last of the series?
That AI pic is horrendous.
Enjoyed the series – but that pic….
Has to be a better pic than an AI generated one.
The Permanent Fund was given to the people of Alaska the same way from the time it started until the time Bill WALKER decided it was up to HIM to change the rules!!! He had NO BUSINESS changing the rules by a Democrat that changed to and Independent, in order to LIE to people so he could get their vote making them believe that he would really help the people of Alaska and then turn his back on them and screw them blind!! THAT is where all the trouble started and since that time Democrats have continued to try and steal our money to fund whatever the Democrats wanted funded!! The man who brought the Permanent Fund for the people even said that if it was given to Politicians they would just piss it down their leg!!