Monday, July 21, 2025
Home Blog Page 1279

Sen. Hughes files for Seat F; & Rep. Wilson files for what?

2

Sen. Shelley Hughes made it official this week, filing for reelection for Senate Seat F, Palmer.

Hughes has lived in Alaska 43 years and in Palmer 29 years. With her husband Roger, she raised four children and now is grandmother to seven. She served for four years in the State House, and three in the Senate.

In her last election, she was primary challenged by Steve St. Clair and Adam Crum, and won in the solidly Republican district.

There’s a primary challenge in Eagle River. Ken McCarty has filed as a Republican against incumbent Rep. Sharon Jackson, who serves Eagle River District 13. McCarty applied to be chosen as representative when Rep. Nancy Dahlstrom became the commissioner of Corrections at the outset of the Dunleavy Administration, but Gov. Mike Dunleavy selected Jackson to serve out that term. This will be Jackson’s first run for the seat. She was previously a candidate for lieutenant governor.

[Read: Who will replace Nancy Dahlstrom?]

Rep. Tammie Wilson

Rep. Tammie Wilson filed for the state primary this week, but did not specify if she is running for her own House seat or if she’s going to challenge Sen. John Coghill, as has been rumored.

Both are up for re-election; Coghill filed with Alaska Public Offices Commission in November for Seat B, Fairbanks / North Pole.

Goldman Sachs dumps on Alaska while investing in Russian Arctic oil

16

While Goldman Sachs, one of the largest investment enterprises in the world, has caved to radical environmentalists by saying the company won’t invest in Alaska’s Arctic oil, it’s investing heavily in oil development in the Russian Arctic.

Goldman Sachs, in fact, is investing in unregulated dirty oil.

[Read: Goldman Sachs redlines Alaska]

The bank is pouring its resources into the independent Irkutsk Oil Company, known as INK. Along with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Goldman Sachs is a minority shareholder in INK, which operates the Yarakta oil field in Irkutsk, as well as in Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) in Siberia.

In Russia, environmental laws are merely suggestions. There is little enforcement and the industry is notorious for leaks, spills, and contamination, especially in far-flung Siberia. Corruption is just a cost of doing business in Russia, and Goldman Sachs is a party to that system of doing business, and the U.S. government can’t do a thing about it.

“INK is not subject to the U.S. sectoral sanctions that apply to Russia’s biggest energy firms and which place restrictions on the type of financing they can attract from Western creditors. INK’s minority shareholders include Goldman Sachs and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD),” according to a report from Reuters in April.

[Read: Upstart Russian oil company with Goldman Sachs backing]

Goldman Sachs International has a 3.75 percent stake in INK, which works in both the Irkutsk region and the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) in eastern Siberia.

INK told Reuters that it plans to invest $3-4 billion into the Arctic oil field over the next three years, and develop more of its gas business with four new processing plants.

Building up the Russian oil industry while taking a pass on Alaska’s Arctic is just another calculation on profitability for Goldman Sachs. But its decisions, profitable as they may be, have global consequences, both environmentally and geopolitically.

Earlier this year, when Iran’s oil was cut off from Syria by the impounding of an Iranian tanker, the war-torn country looked to Russia for help.

Analysts predicted the move would make Syrian President Bashar al-Assad even more dependent on Moscow and less able to withstand Russian demands. Russian oil, then, makes Russia more influential in that war-torn region of the Middle East.

“The Kremlin has sought to wield the main influence over Syria and reap geo-strategic and business benefits from its military intervention in the eight-year Syrian war and its propping up of the Assad government,” according to Voice of America.

[Read: Goldman Sachs-backed Russian oil firm plans expansion]

Goldman Sachs has a history of making deals with some of the world’s biggest polluters and baddest political actors. People like Moammar Qaddafi in Libya.

[Read: Hot Mess: How Goldman Sachs lost $1.2 billion of Libya’s money]

According to Goldman Sachs’ oil analyst Michele Della Vigna, there’s still money to be made in Big Oil. “In our view, the first wave of final investment decisions will likely take the form of brownfield developments with quicker payback, particularly in West Africa, the Gulf of Mexico and the North Sea. We should see a strong recovery in the number of projects in 2019 and 2020, led by Big Oils’ deepwater and liquefied natural gas investments. We expect roughly $120bn in LNG projects during those two years as the industry catches up with the production gap resulting from four years of low investments and strong underlying demand,” she said, in a Goldman Sachs publication.

In other words, the company is still investing in oil. But it’s investing in other countries, where regimes are corrupt and environmental organizations don’t have influence.

New taxes with ‘Project ’20s’

ANCHORAGE DAILY PLANET

While you might not ever know it from local news media, a shadowy group has formed to push a sales tax initiative, “Project ‘20s Anchorage,” onto the city’s April ballot – while dodging the city charter’s 60 percent vote requirement for such levies.

The proposal, which needs eight Assembly members’ support to reach the ballot, would impose a 3 percent “temporary” sales tax, to take effect in January 2021. It would raise $375 million for capital projects before it sunsets in five years, the effort’s website says. It promises to exempt food, gasoline – which the Berkowitz administration already taxes – and other “essentials” and even sets up a one week “back to school” tax holiday.

“The projects funded through the initiative will go towards downtown revitalization and needed public safety improvements throughout Anchorage, including added shelter capacity and substance abuse treatment,” says a flier describing the initiative.

Some of that sounds eerily similar to rhetoric some Assembly members and the Berkowitz administration currently are using as they try for the second time in less than a year to push through a 5 percent retail alcohol tax – complete with its own “one-time exemption” to the city charter.

Because the Project ‘20s Anchorage initiative is a general sales tax, the charter requires a supermajority vote, or 60 percent of the votes cast, for passage. But the initiative – surprise! – includes a one-time amendment to the charter that would reduce that supermajority to 50 percent, a gambit increasingly popular with our Assembly as it tries to dodge the charter.

The Project ‘20s Anchorage spending would include: $25 million for Downtown winter upgrade, whatever that might entail; $75 million for trails rehabilitation; $85 million for Alaska Center for Treatment; $25 million for 4th Avenue pedestrian redesign; $40 million for an Eagle River Valley fire station; $25 million for Hillside fire evacuation roads; $50 million for Ship Creek promenade and brewing district; $30 million for Performing Arts Center and Town Square Park rehabilitation; and, $20 million for a tax administration and small business assistance fund.

Who are those pushing the tax? They are not saying. “Project ‘20s is an Anchorage-based citizen- and business-led group working to advance capital projects that make our city a destination for residents, visitors, and investment,” says it website. But under “Who we are” and “Contact Us” on that website there are no names. No telephone numbers. Nada. Zip.

The only name associated with the group is on its Alaska Public Offices Commission filing: Moira J. Gallagher, chairperson. She is former director of the Live. Work. Play. program at the Anchorage Economic Development Corp. The group has not reported contributions or donations for the third quarter, nor will it have to until the initiative makes the ballot.

Like the Recall Dunleavy effort, Alaska law allows this initiative’s contributors and backers to remain secret forever unless the group rolls over into the election campaign any money collected to win a spot on the ballot.

The lack of transparency in Project ‘20s Anchorage should be enough to set off alarm bells. What we have is a ballot initiative full of Anchorage-could-be-a-garden-spot gobbledygook being peddled to the Assembly by …. who? How much has been spent? How much will be spent? Is it a coincidence that what this group wants seems to echo what some on the Assembly and in the administration want?

A cynic might think there could be linkage between the tax effort and some in city government; that Project ‘20s Anchorage is a cover, but there is only one way to dispel any of that: Who are the people backing the initiative and where is the money coming from?

Alaska’s tobacco minimum age could be 21, if Trump signs spending bill Friday

4

BILL REPEALS CADILLAC TAX FROM ALASKA HEALTH INSURANCE

The minimum age to buy tobacco products will go from 19 to 21 in Alaska and several other states, if President Donald Trump signs a spending bill that was passed by the U.S. Senate on Thursday to avert a government shutdown.

The tobacco provision was one of many policy elements in the spending bill that included funds to build a wall along the border with Mexico, a 3.1 percent increase for military personnel, and the full repeal of Obamacare-related taxes on the most expensive health insurance plans, sometimes called “Cadillac plans.”

Currently, 19 states have set the minimum age for tobacco purchases at 21, but in Alaska, 19-year-olds can still buy cigarettes and e-cigarettes. The new age limit, supported by the many in the tobacco industry and by the president himself, would take effect in September. The bill stopped short of banning flavored vaping products, something anti-smoking forces had lobbied for, since those products are more attractive to young people.

The president must sign the bill by Friday to avoid a government shutdown.

Sen. Dan Sullivan of Alaska issued a statement after the passage of the spending bills, which drew strong bipartisan support. The first one passed with on a vote of 71-23.

“While I continue to believe that the process by which we fund the government is fundamentally flawed and must be reformed, these bills include significant wins for Alaskans. At long last, we were able to repeal the Affordable Care Act’s so-called Cadillac Tax. This tax, up to 40 percent on health insurance plans, threatened the vast majority of plans offered in Alaska—including union plans and plans offered to state workers—and had the potential to collapse the entire health insurance market in Alaska had it been fully implemented. We were also able to do away with the ‘Kiddie Tax,’ which, among others things, targeted young Alaskans receiving their PFDs, and we were able to provide tax relief for those impacted by the 2018 Southcentral earthquake. I also fought hard to make sure this bill funded the Secure Rural Schools Program. Further, we made continued progress on substantial Alaska military investments, including over $50 million of Coast Guard infrastructure investments to be ready to take new ships arriving in Kodiak and Southeast. I’ve continued to press for these investments as chair of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness, and also as Chair of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Security. I applaud Senator Murkowski for her diligent work on the Senate Appropriations Committee and Congressman Young for securing these provisions in the House.”

Goldman Sachs redlines Alaska and Trump, (but was OK with funding Hillary?)

A MAJOR FLIP-FLOP ON ARCTIC OIL AND GAS INVESTMENT

It was just 18 months ago that former Gov. Bill Walker announced he had struck an agreement with Goldman Sachs to participate in financing of a gasline from Prudhoe Bay to Nikiski, along with other global players, such as the Bank of China. The agreement is technically still on the books.

That was then. Of course, the gasline has proven to be financially unfeasible at this time, and other private sector players are now looking at shipping natural gas through newly opened Arctic Ocean shipping lanes.

[Read: Group to bypass gasline, ship Arctic gas via ocean]

Today, Goldman Sachs has done a massive flip flop and turned its back on oil and gas investments in the Arctic, specifically naming the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which Goldman Sachs has suddenly redlined against investment.

Goldman Sachs, one of the largest investment companies in the world, says it’s also going to shrug off a lot of forestry and mining. Basically, if it is an Alaska resource, one of the largest banks in the world is saying it’s just not that into it.

“Oil development in the Arctic Circle is prone to harsh operating conditions, sea ice, permafrost coverage, and potential impacts to critical natural habitats for endangered species,” Goldman Sachs said in its Environmental Policy Framework. “The unique and fragile ecosystems of the Arctic region also support the subsistence livelihoods of indigenous peoples groups that have populated certain areas in the region for centuries.

“For transactions relating to Arctic oil, we apply enhanced due diligence including understanding companies’ strategy and commitment to reducing overall [greenhouse gas] GHG emissions. Among factors, we consider: energy use and GHG emissions; environmental impacts; emergency management plans; forest and biodiversity preservation; endangered species protection and management plans; and any local community impacts, including those relating to indigenous peoples and subsistence resources.

We will decline any financing transaction that directly supports new upstream Arctic oil exploration or development. This includes but is not limited to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. – Goldman Sachs

“Companies’ diversification strategy and carbon emissions reduction initiatives will be a key consideration in our evaluation of future financings with the goal of helping their transition strategy,” the Environmental Policy Framework added. “We will phase out our financing of thermal coal mining companies that do not have a diversification strategy within a reasonable timeframe.”

Goldman Sachs makes no mention of its 2018 agreement with the Alaska Gasline Development Agency, which under the supervision of Gov. Bill Walker had developed a funding framework for the gasline.

The decree against Arctic oil and gas development is coming from the company that during the 2016 presidential election forbade its top executives from donating to the campaign of Donald J. Trump, while allowing them to donate to the Hillary Clinton campaign.

The Wall Street Journal took note of the company’s turning its back on Alaska’s economy.

In an interview with the newspaper, Gov. Mike Dunleavy told columnist James Freeman that Alaskans will have to decide “whether we want to do business” with Goldman Sachs anymore.

“And who can blame Alaska if it chooses to cut ties with the Wall Street megabank?” the columnist wrote.

Goldman Sachs’ newest version of its environmental policy says the company  “will decline any financing transaction that directly supports new upstream Arctic oil exploration or development.”

Dunleavy told the newspaper that the unintended consequences of the company decision are real, and that Alaska has some of the most stringent environmental standards in the world. Oil producers will just head to regions that are less regulated.

“You’re going to push jobs and wealth and revenues” to overseas areas and “exacerbate” ecological problems, Dunleavy told the newspaper, which added the obvious: If Goldman Sachs takes this stance against Alaska, other investment institutions will step up and see opportunity. There’s plenty of capital out there right now. Goldman Sachs can virtue signal all it wants, but it’s not the only dance partner.

Could Alaska cut ties with Goldman Sachs? Not only does Alaska have a $67 billion Permanent Fund that is invested on Wall Street, but has billions invested through other trust funds, such as:

A political firewall between the executive branch and the funds’ managers makes it difficult for the Dunleavy Administration to take any specific retaliatory actions against Goldman Sachs through the Alaska Permanent Fund investments, as much as he and Alaskans would like to.

But that doesn’t mean Dunleavy has to remain silent. He can talk with the Legislature and the people of Alaska about whether the State wants Goldman Sachs to handle its bond sales (for oil and gas tax credits, ironically), now that the East Coast banking company has decided it wants to shut down Alaska’s economy. Those bond sales are handled by the Department of Revenue, in the Executive Branch.

In addition, with an ally like President Donald Trump, Dunleavy has some additional leverage of his own in the court of public opinion. And he’s shown he’s not going to be bullied by the environmental organizations that want Alaska to be a playground for the elite to come visit during the summer.

Ranked choice voting? Why progressives want it here

9

By ANN BROWN

The day before the Independence Day holiday last summer, local progressives filed a petition ironically named “Alaskans for Better Elections,” which would destroy the integrity of Alaska’s elections. If passed, the ballot initiative would bring us ranked-choice voting. The petition was sponsored, in part, by former District 22 Rep. Jason Grenn.You may remember that Mr. Grenn was soundly defeated by now-Rep. Sara Rasmussen in 2018. Are sour grapes on the menu here? 

In a ranked-choice general election, voters would “rank” their choice of four candidates for a given office. Candidates garnering more than 50% of the vote in the first ranking would win office immediately. If no one person wins a majority, candidates are whittled away and ranking continues until one individual is declared the winner. 

This initiative is backed nearly entirely by Outside donations; its major supporter is a Colorado-based organization that gave $500,000 in one pop last month.

Progressives will say this election system brings more moderate voices to the Legislature. Perhaps that is the way Mr. Grenn sees himself. When viewed in practicality, however, this initiative can largely be seen as a plan by progressives to take control of Alaska’s political system. Ranked-choice voting has been implemented in Maine, as well as in municipalities in California and Michigan, locations which can hardly be considered strongholds of conservative political thought. 

Perhaps what is probably most appealing to Mr. Grenn and his initiative supporters is, however, that ranked-choice voting enables candidates with limited voter support to win elections. Maybe Mr. Grenn believes he could have defeated Rep. Rasmussen in 2018, even without support from his constituents, under this system. All Mr. Grenn would have had to do to continue to be considered is not be the candidate with the lowest votes received; he could have persisted in the race long after his expiration date. 

Consider this – a 2015 study of four local elections in Washington and California using ranked-choice ballots found that the winner in all four elections never received a majority of the votes. This is because voters usually do not rank all possible candidates.

For the sake of expediency and their own sanity, voters typically only list their top two or three candidates. If those candidates are eliminated, then so are the votes of these individuals. Under a ranked-choice system, ballots that do not include the ultimate victors are summarily cast aside.

While this creates the appearance of a majority of votes in favor of the winner, it obscures actual voter choices; it’s a system that fundamentally disenfranchises voters. 

In Maine’s 2018 federal congressional race, the conservative incumbent was thrown out, despite receiving a plurality of votes in the initial election. Maine’s Secretary of State eliminated more than 14,000 ballots that didn’t rank the remaining candidates and handed the win to the liberal challenger. 

Australia’s 2010 election had a strikingly similar outcome; the liberal party took over the House, despite receiving 38% of the initial vote. The conservative party received 43% of the vote, but was somehow denied victory. 

One can see why progressives are so excited about this proposal. It reeks of elitism and is engineered to pad the fortunes of liberal candidates. Alaskan voters, don’t let yourselves be taken in. If this initiative reaches your ballot next year, vote it down.

Ann Brown, formerly of Fairbanks, now lives in Anchorage. She is an experienced trial lawyer who was the managing partner of her firm’s branch office, with a focus on labor and employment law. Currently retired, she is the vice chair of the Alaska Republican Party.

Brighter side of warm winter: Lower heating bills

19

By CRAIG MEDRED

After an unusually warm fall, Alaska’s urban core is heading into the winter season looking wholly unseasonable, but there could be a Christmas bonus for homeowners hidden in the picture.

National Weather Service records indicate heating degree days in the state’s largest city are down almost 32 percent from normal for the period from July 1 through Tuesday. Heating degree days provide the yardstick the NWS uses to measure energy use to heat buildings. 

The warm weather should have cut your home use of natural gas by about a third, and thus produced a similar drop in your fuel bill.

The average monthly cost for natural gas in the Anchorage Metro area last year was just over $158 per month, according to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, the state entity that oversees utilities.

At that rate, the average homeowner on an annual payment plan would have paid Enstar about $710 to date. But given that this year has been far from normal, about a third less gas should have been used, and your bill should have dropped accordingly.

A 32 percent change would drop the amount the average homeowner actually owes Enstar Natural Gas as of this date to a hair over $484, resulting in an average savings of $227 – enough to buy a new pair of ski boots for Christmas.

That’s a pretty nice Christmas blessing to make up for the unChristmas-like weather. The savings could, of course, disappear if January, February and March turn brutally cold, but that is not expected. The National Climate Center says there is a 40 to 50 percent probability Alaska weather will be above normal at least through February.

And by then things are starting to warm up.

If the climate prediction proves true, Anchorage area residents should be saving on their home heating bills all winter, but even if the weather returns to the NWS’s climatological normal” – the average of the 20 years from 1981 to 2010 – the average homeowner will still be $225 ahead.

The only way consumers lose is if the winter months prove unusually cold compared to normal, and no one is predicting that in these days of global warming.

Actual savings will, of course, depend on the size of your home and how well it is insulated. Poorly insulated homes require more energy to heat than well-insulated homes. Large homes generally require more energy than small homes.

[Read more at CraigMedred.news]

Grow up: Why is the State responsible for serving Real ID services off the grid?

14

ANALYSIS: NOT THE STATE’S JOB TO SPOON-FEED BUSH ALASKA

The 30 DMV offices around Alaska are busy issuing Real IDs to Alaskans who come through the door with their paperwork in order. The news media has taken note: Lines are long as the deadline of Oct. 1 approaches.

But Alaskans were warned long ago to get this task checked off their list. In fact, Alaska even received federal waiver in 2015 allowing the 49th state to delay implementation of Real ID until 2020. But the clock has run out.

[Read: Real ID: How to do it like a pro]

With a Real ID or a U.S. passport, you can get on a commercial airlines or into a federal building. Without one of those items, you’ll not get through the TSA gauntlet, but you can still drive with a regular driver’s license. You can still get on a small commuter plane. You just can’t get through TSA or into some federal facilities.

The smallest community with an Alaska DMV office may be Anderson, Alaska, population about 264. The largest is the DMV on Benson Blvd. in Anchorage, where there are multiple windows with helpful DMV workers ready to assist; people visit that office from all over the state.

But for some Democrat legislators, it’s not enough for the State to issue Real IDs in 30 hub communities. They want more.

They demand the State of Alaska to go from village to village and ensure that everyone has a Real ID so they’ll be able to travel on commercial airlines.

That is, perhaps, the only real need for a Real ID. In fact, people can travel with a passport, also considered “real ID.” They can also use a passport for getting into other federal facilities.

The Department of Administration would be happy to comply with the demands of rural legislators — if someone wants to pay for it. Alas, there’s no line item in the budget for circuit riders carrying Real ID machines around the Bush, in spite of the fact that Rep. Neal Foster is the co-chair of Finance, and his region has plenty of remote communities. He never funded it. Yet now he and Rep. Tiffany Zulkosky demand it.

DMV may have great customer service, but providing door-to-door assistance to every eligible person from Little Diomede to Stony River should not be one of those services. It would represent an absurd level of expectation for the more than 130 communities that don’t have a DMV.

Think of this: A DMV employee might need to visit a community such as Napakiak multiple times just to ensure most people are served. They might have to bring a translator to St. Paul or Point Hope. Residents might be frustrated because they don’t have the proper documentation during a DMV visit. Getting that documentation could take them a few weeks.

Additionally, people come and go from villages seasonally. They head to Fairbanks for the winter, and to fish camp for the summer. They hunt in the fall. They travel to Anchorage for their medical appointments and shopping.

Machines would break in transit. Workers would get weathered in. Translators would be unavailable due to sickness, travel, or simply because.

The cost-benefit simply does not pencil.

If funded through the normal budgeting process, this DMV concierge service could become impossible to remove as a line item in the future.

Why? Because Real ID is not a one-time event. It’s forever. Every generation that comes of age will need to get a Real ID in order to travel on commercial airlines or enter federal facilities. And that means all youth today will have to go through the process. Thousands will need to do so every year in hundreds of non-DMV communities.

Conservatives say it’s the responsibility of the individual, living wherever they are in Alaska, to use their trips to the hub communities for their dental work and medical appointments to take the time to apply for their Real IDs. It’s not the government’s job to bring a machine to their front porch to help them accomplish this mandate from the federal government.

Since the Department of Administration doesn’t have the money to go to each and every village, an initiative of this type would require partnership with an outside funder who has an interest in the Real ID project.

Who would be interested in such an initiative? This is a job for the Rasmuson Foundation or Alaska Federation of Natives to take on. Rasmuson or AFN, which already work hand-in-hand to oppose the Dunleavy Administration, could provide the translators, and ensure the safety of the traveling State worker who would land in remote villages without protection. The organizations can pay for the repair of the equipment that breaks in transit. They can pay the overtime for the worker and the benefits package. They can pay for the do-overs and the fly-overs.

The Rasmuson Foundation partnered with the State in creating Pick.Click.Give., to encourage Alaskans to be more charitable. It worked and the program is thriving since being established in 2008.

If getting rural Alaskans their Real ID is mission critical (this kind of handholding is done nowhere else in the country), then it’s a valuable project for the foundation or AFN to take on.

If not Rasmuson or AFN, then Tanana Chiefs, Village Corporations, or Native Corporations are appropriate organizations to guide their communities and shareholders in taking responsibility for themselves. Nobody should be caught flat-footed in October without proper ID.

But if no one steps up to take on the initiative, the State Department of Administration should stand down before it takes a schuss down that slippery slope.

Breaking: Obamacare individual mandate struck down by appeals court

7

The U.S. Fifth District Court of Appeals, based in Florida, has struck down the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

The law forced those without health insurance to purchase it. Many of those who purchase it receive federal tax breaks to help offset some of the cost. There are severe penalties in the law for those who don’t have health insurance. For many Americans, the law meant losing their doctors and paying huge premiums.

The three-judge panel did not address the rest of the Obamacare structure, but sent the rest of the law back Judge Reed O’Connor, the same Texas federal judge who one year ago declared Obamacare unconstitutional.

O’Connor has previously ruled that the rest of the law cannot stand on its own. The appeals court wants him to now to consider the question again.

O’Connor has a conservative record. In 2016, he struck down the Obama Administration’s guideline to allow transgender minors to use school bathrooms of their choice. In 2018, he agreed with a coalition that included 20 states that said Obamacare is unconstitutional.

Those states were Texas, Wisconsin, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia.

Alaska was noticeably absent from that lawsuit under former Gov. Bill Walker, even though Alaskans were forced to pay the highest prices in the nation for health insurance. Walker’s signature achievement in his administration was expanding Medicaid along with enacting Obamacare as a law in the state, something Gov. Sean Parnell would not do, based on constitutional questions.

O’Connor has also previously ruled in favor of Texas in a $300 million lawsuit over fees associated with Obamacare. He also ruled that an Obama Administration rule that was intended to prevent discrimination against transgender patients could violate the religious freedom of doctors who were forced to accept and treat them as patients.

Now, Obamacare heads back to O’Connor’s court, where it’s a familiar territory for him. It’s unlikely the judge will have a ruling prior to the 2020 election, which means it will kick this question into the Supreme Court following the 2020 election.