By Ed Martin, Jr.
Alaska’s Constitution begins with a simple but demanding truth: “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.” These words are not ceremonial. They are instructions.
One of the people’s most important constitutional safeguards is the grand jury. Long before prosecutors or modern courts existed, grand juries served as a direct instrument of citizen oversight— especially when government itself became the subject of concern.
That safeguard has quietly eroded in Alaska.
Under Alaska Constitution Article I, Section 8, and Alaska Criminal Rule 6.1, grand juries possess constitutional authority beyond criminal indictments, including investigation and reporting on matters of public welfare and safety. That recognition honored both history and constitutional design.
Yet today, ordinary citizens cannot meaningfully access an investigative grand jury without first obtaining executive permission. Requests must pass through the Attorney General— a part of the very branch often implicated in matters of public concern. Courts, bound by procedural rules, increasingly decline to engage the constitutional question at all.
The result is a troubling inversion: the people’s oversight mechanism exists in theory, but not in practice.
A right that cannot be exercised is no right at all. A power that cannot be accessed is no power. A Constitution that functions only on paper ceases to function as a governing document.
This is not about personalities or politics. It is about structure.
When all roads to accountability lead through the same institutions that may require scrutiny, independence disappears. That is not how a constitutional republic is designed to operate, and it is precisely why grand juries exist as independent bodies belonging to the people— not as appendages of government.
Article I of the Alaska Constitution does more than list rights. It imposes a duty. When government ceases to function for the common good, the people are not only permitted to act, but they are also obligated to insist on restoration. This is not rebellion. It is constitutional maintenance. Restoration means reopening meaningful citizen access to investigative grand juries, ending exclusive executive gatekeeping, and requiring courts to engage constitutional conflicts openly and on the record.
History offers a warning. Alaska has already seen the consequences of excessive judicial and prosecutorial control over grand juries. Those lessons were learned the hard way and should not be forgotten. Silence in the face of structural erosion is not neutrality; it is consent.
This issue transcends party lines and policy debates. It goes to the heart of whether Alaska remains governed by its Constitution or by institutional convenience. The Constitution was not written to be admired. It was written to be used. When its safeguards are diminished quietly, common sense demands that citizens speak plainly and act lawfully to restore them.
FAQs About the Grand Jury Issue
Q: What is the core issue you are raising?
A: Citizens in Alaska no longer have meaningful access to investigative grand juries without executive permission. That undermines popular sovereignty and the Constitution’s design.
Q: Why does executive gatekeeping matter?
A: Grand juries are meant to be independent of the executive branch. Requiring executive approval to access them defeats their purpose.
Q: Are you accusing judges or prosecutors of wrongdoing?
A: This is not about personal motives. It is about institutional design and constitutional consequences. Systems can fail even absent bad intent by an individual.
Q: What constitutional provisions are implicated?
A: Article I, Sections 1 and 2 (inherent rights and popular sovereignty), and Article I, Section 8 (grand juries).
Q: What do you want changed?
A: Restore meaningful citizen access to investigative grand juries and require courts to engage constitutional questions openly.
Q: Is this a partisan issue?
A: No. Constitutional safeguards protect everyone, regardless of party or ideology.
Q: Why should the public care?
A: Because when citizens lose access to constitutional oversight, government accountability becomes optional.
Q: What role should the legislature play?
A: Ensure that constitutional mechanisms remain accessible and are not nullified by internal rulemaking.
Q: Bottom line?
A: This is not a call for revolution. It is a call for fidelity and the restoration of the Constitution as written.