By JON FAULKNER
Political parties represent the aspirations of the people within them. They are the backbone of democracy, both the catalyst for change and a defender 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. 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, and worse don’t vote, this reflects discontent. Yes, our nation is polarized, but for most of America’s 250-year lifespan, we’ve experienced far worse. What is new is a pervasive distrust in political parties to remedy division and to unite people.
Trump changed all 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 to 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’ve witnessed so many examples of party drift that it’s impossible to list them–from the Walker-Mallot disaster to the Dunleavy recall; and from the Joe Miller 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 compromising 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 district empowerment through 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.”
This 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, within broad limits; develop criteria for registration (even control registration) and participation in the governance of the party; interview, vet and endorse (or not) candidates for office; help fund candidates; and develop an internal means to promote candidates; and to 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, “necessarily presupposes the freedom to identify the people who constitute that association.” The court went on to note 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 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 associational rights of a political party are of paramount importance. 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 registered voters.
All Alaskans who care about our future should invest more in sustaining principles than in personalities and election promises. Our two-party system, and party primaries—not RCV—is the way to accomplish this. The law in this field is refreshingly clear and logical, but somewhat the victim of “brand dilution and appropriation”—which is impossible to eliminate. But voters can eliminate poor choices by their political party, and bad actors who deceive the electorate.
Finally, remain vigilant. Law is shaped by argument; dissent by judges can be as enlightening as the majority decision. Our right to freely associates only protected to the degree legal precedent is sound. Curious citizens should read the dissent of judges Eastaugh and Mathews in State v. Green Party of Alaska, (2005) for an example of where Alaska’s constitution trumped our National Constitution. Another example comes from Vogler v. Miller, where the Supreme Court found “…that the free speech guarantee of article I, section 5 of the Alaska Constitution—under which we decide challenges to election laws—is more protective of the right to participate in the political process than its federal counterpart, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. We therefore stress that the results we derive under the Alaska Constitution need not correspond with those the Supreme Court might reach under the federal constitution.