On a drizzly Saturday morning in Juneau, the pressure cooker that is the Alaska State Capitol boiled over.

The Alaska House of Representatives, which had been high-centered for nearly a week, finally took a vote on ratifying the budget passed on Tuesday by the State Senate. The vote occurred after a firestorm of support for the Senate version of the budget from constituents across the state, asking for ratification of the statutory Permanent Fund dividend. 

Along with that support came significant opposition from some of the state’s largest special interest groups. Opposed to the size of the Permanent Fund dividend in the Senate budget, a campaign to label the vote as one for “unsustainable government spending” went into overdrive this past week.

While the House continued to delay its vote, the influence from third-party groups began having a material impact within the Capitol and on lawmakers. Spanning the political spectrum, a mixture of public shaming tactics, visits from lobbyists, and letters from trade associations mounted up a pressure press on representatives considering a yes vote.

The pressure worked. Saturday’s failed ratification vote, called a concurrence vote, came after lengthy floor debate. Representatives from both parties crossed the aisle to vote both for and against the Senate version of the budget. By a vote of 18-22, the state’s operating budget, which is the only duty of the Legislature under the Alaska Constitution, is now still unfinished as the session careens towards May 18, the last day legally egislators can meet without a special session. 

Debate on the floor was tense but mostly cordial. The differences of opinion overwhelmingly centered along the size of the Permanent Fund dividend. Some remarks revealed the conflicting feelings of legislators, such as Rep. Geran Tarr, an Anchorage Democrat.

In a voice that at times nearly cracked, Tarr recounted her district’s high poverty rate, and the life-changing effects a statutory Permanent Fund dividend would have on her constituents. Tarr’s concerns were conflicted by the need to get other legislation passed, including her signature bill on victims’ rights. 

Tarr ultimately voted no, along with a majority of her mostly-Democrat caucus. Joining Tarr were Reps. David Eastman and Chris Kurka, both Republicans of Wasilla. Both lawmakers made remarks about the unsustainability of the Senate’s budget number, as well as the lack of firm prohibitions on abortion funding from state Medicaid dollars (the Alaska Constitution requires taxpayer funded abortions, despite years of defunding attempts by governors and lawmakers). 

What took place after the vote raised more than a few eyebrows. Speaker Louise Stutes appointed the House’s negotiating team to wrangle over the differences in the budget with the Senate. The team, called a conference committee, has almost every year been chaired by the co-chairs of the Finance Committee and the ranking Finance Committee member from the minority caucus. But not this year.

Stutes selected Rep. Kelly Merrick of Eagle River to chair the committee, and appointed Rep. Dan Ortiz of Ketchikan and Rep. Bart LeBon of Fairbanks. Each one of the three members Stutes chose has voted publicly against a Permanent Fund dividend that is calculated according to law. Notably absent from being appointed to the conference committee was Rep. Neal Foster of Nome. Foster, a rural Democrat and the co-chair of the Finance Committee, actually guided the House building of the operating budget. 

The omission of Foster from the negotiating team points to one likely outcome: Foster’s district overwhelmingly supports a full statutory dividend, and his ability to maneuver in favor of a lower dividend is limited. By removing Foster from the conference committee, the ability to lower the dividend amount in the negotiations shields him from a decision that would pit him against either his district or his caucus. The makeup also allows Kelly Merrick the ability to vote for a higher dividend without risking it being adopted by the House negotiating team. 

What happens next is unclear. The Alaska Senate will likely go into its floor session shortly and be asked to seat its own negotiating team. Tradition would be that the Senate Finance co-chairs, Sens. Bert Stedman of Sitka and Click Bishop of Fairbanks, be appointed along with a Senate Democrat.

Stedman has a history of hard negotiations, employing legislative tactics that have been characterized as bullying and coercive by his opponents, while deemed necessary by his supporters.

The ire of a negotiation effectively led by Stedman in the House, and indeed much of the Senate, is palpable. 

But what is clear is both the House and the Senate benefit from the negotiating teams being at least constituted. This is because the rules governing how bills move through committees are accelerated, under a provision called the 24-hour rule. With that rule in effect, the list of legislation that will begin passing and be part of the session’s endgame will grow exponentially, including items such as crime, elections, education, and state employee pay. 

Time is not on lawmakers’ side. With adjournment required at the latest by midnight on Wednesday, the Legislature will need significant collaboration and breakthroughs in negotiation to ward off the chance of missing the deadline, and threatening a government shutdown on July 1.