Editors Note: Updated with stylistic rewriting of conclusion.

Political parties represent the aspirations of the people within them. They are the backbone of democracy, both a catalyst for change and a bulwark of tradition. Citizens can choose to be in or out; but the latter course defers our country’s fate to the few. A robust democracy is restless, subjecting societal values to constant attack. The lessons of “The Hunger Games”—and 250 years of national exceptionalism–are instructional: Embrace freedom; define and defend humanity’s best hope; fight for it; and form alliances to overcome the dark forces of destruction.   

When political parties do these things, they win elections and influence the course of history. This is one reason we are a great nation. The U.S. is now and has been for 250 years a nation built on two-party opposition and competition for ideas. This system has led directly to prosperity for our citizens, global military dominance, and justice before the law. Left-leaning protests notwithstanding, history proves that freedom and democracy are forces for good and have served to reduce misery and destruction like no other in history.  

And yet, history also proves the tendency of those in power to consolidate their control. Many regimes still exist which suppress or outlaw opposition parties. Americans are fortunate indeed, as the presence of dissent in the form of a vigorous, two-party politic is the single most defining ingredient to freedom and world peace known to history. 

When parties lose their purpose, or fail to inspire the people, we should worry. When 40-50% of voters are undeclared or independent, or worse do not even vote, this reflects malaise. Yes, our nation is polarized, but for much of America’s 250-year lifespan, we have experienced far worse. What is new is a pervasive distrust in political parties to remedy division and to unite people.  

Trump changed this for Republicans but not in a party-driven manner. The brand is now MAGA and Trump himself, not the Republican party. His persona has replaced the platform, as it did Rhonna McDaniels as chair of the RNC. Prior to Trump, national party platforms divided on major topics like abortion and nationalized healthcare, but no more. Today, Trump’s daily agenda is the RNC platform and opposition to everything Trump is the DNC platform.  

Here in Alaska, we have witnessed so many examples of party drift that it is impossible to list them–from the Walker-Mallot disaster to the Dunleavy recall; and from Joe Miller’s primary win and Murkowski’s subsequent write-in campaign, to modern-day Republican majorities that flip to Democrat-controlled coalitions. In the 2022 U.S. Senate race, Kelly Tshibaka had both Trump’s and the Alaska Republican Party’s endorsement, yet the National Republican Senatorial Committee issued an attack campaign against Tshibaka, seriously undermining the brand. Rank Choice Voting (RCV) squeaked into law amid this confused state of affairs, effectively neutralizing one of the most powerful expressions of party purpose and unity—the party primary.   

While the cause of party drift is complex, the solution is not—restore local empowerment through district endorsements and party primaries. If the people are going to preserve their status as the ultimate source of political power, it will come through grassroots activism at the district party level. Further, if political parties are going to remain a potent force in elections, party leaders must clearly distinguish between what they legally CANNOT do from what they CHOOSE NOT to do. For example, it is the party— not the law or Rank Choice Voting— that is preventing party primaries in Alaska.  

Here is what Judge Pallenberg stated in the 2017 case State of Alaska v. Alaska Democratic Party: 

“… a state may not constitutionally legislate the means by which a political party goes about achieving its goals and that it is up to a political party to determine “the boundaries of its own association.” Because a political party’s associational rights include its ability to make decisions about internal affairs, [state] laws that impact a political party’s internal structure, governance, and policy-making are generally unconstitutional.” 

The Alaska Republican Party— or any party, even a new one— can engage in all of the following activities: develop its platform; decide who its members are and by what criteria they can be both included or excluded, with narrow exceptions; develop criteria for registration (even control registration) and participation in the governance of the party; interview, vet and endorse (or not) candidates for office; develop an internal means to promote candidates, and fundraise.  

How ironic it is that Alaska’s, California’s and Washington’s blanket primaries were all found unconstitutional under California Democratic Party v. Jones, because they “force political parties to associate with and have their nominees, and hence their positions, determined by those who, at best, have refused to affiliate with the party and, at worst, have expressly affiliated with a rival”. 

 Sound familiar, Alaska?  

In affirming Pallenberg’s ruling, Alaska’s Supreme Court was emphatic in its view that while the state is limited in its reach, a political party’s right to manage its internal affairs is sacrosanct. Citing precedent under Tashjian v Republican Party of Connecticut, our Supreme Court stated that the right of association “necessarily presupposes the freedom to identify the people who constitute that association…” and that this right “…is perhaps nowhere more important than during a primary election,” because that is the point at which “political parties select the candidates who will speak for them to the broader public and, if successful, will lead their political party in advancing its interests.”  

In the Tashjian case, SCOTUS had earlier concluded that: 

“A political party possesses the same right to associate with candidates of its choosing as it does to participate with voters of its choosing. A political party’s right to associate necessarily includes the ability to identify the individuals with whom to associate.” 

Suffice it to say our courts are aligned on the principle that the state cannot limit a party’s ability to select the candidate whom its primary voters believe will fare best among Alaska’s unique population of voters. The Alaska Republican party’s “closed” primary was, and is today, constitutional.  

Alaskans who want accountability from politicians should embrace principle over personality, and state party endorsements over fake labels. Party primaries—not RCV—is the way to expose political duplicity. Misappropriation of party labels is hard to control, but what the party stands for and rejects is easy to control. Trump is no king, but he is decisive. He is fearless, unfiltered, crass with his criticism; but he is an effective fighter who knows an ally from an enemy. He is relentless in pursuit of purpose. 

Vigilance assumes values. Action assumes leadership. Political parties are not a distortion of political power. As the expression of citizen values, they are the source of it. Like the judiciary, where the law can be determined by a single person, one voter or candidate matters. Dissent, carefully reasoned, can change history. Overturing Wade v. Roe took a generation. Today, our right to freely associate is protected to the degree political parties use and enforce their rights. Party primaries are a choice, and a protected right under law.   

No party can promote constitutional rights without understanding the impacts of seminal decisions that define our rights, such as the 2008 case Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party. Alaskans should read the dissent of judges in cases decided by a single vote, for example Eastaugh’s and Bryner’s in State v. Green Party of Alaska (2005). The concept of “stricter scrutiny” used to establish the pre-eminence of state vs. federal constitutions, as expressed by Justice Carpeneti in the Green Party case, is essential to monitoring “judicial activism” that when unchecked can circumvent federal case law. We cannot blame the judiciary if we ourselves shy away from enforcing or re-shaping the law. And parties cannot defend the world’s best hope for human progress if they falter in their purpose.