Former representative's lawsuit prompts Alaska Legislature to redo bills in session's final days
The Alaska State Capitol is seen on Monday, Feb. 3, 2025, in front of snow-covered Mount Juneau. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
Rep. David Eastman lost his bid for reelection last November, but the Wasilla Republican's legacy is still affecting the Alaska Legislature.
On Friday, the Legislature passed four bills that are attempts to redo legislation that passed the Capitol last year. The redo was encouraged by a lawsuit filed by Eastman against the Legislature in November.
At the end of last year's legislative session, lawmakers combined multiple bills — dealing with child care, state boards and hunting guide changes — in an effort to get them passed before the session's constitutional deadline.
Legislative attorneys and even some legislators said at the time that the combination would be a violation of Article II, Section 13, of the Alaska Constitution, which says that 'every bill shall be confined to one subject unless it is an appropriation bill or one codifying, revising, or rearranging existing laws.'
Eastman cites that section of the constitution in his lawsuit. With the suit moving forward, thus raising questions about the legality of the policies within the contested bill, legislators reintroduced each of the contested bills separately when the Legislature reconvened in January.
One of the bills creates a concession program for hunting guides, allowing the state to more tightly regulate the big-game hunting industry in Alaska. Two others are intended to help Alaska's child care shortage, one by offering additional tax credits to companies that offer child care for their employees.
Each of the bills started in the Senate, and each passed the House on Friday, all by wide margins.
Speaker of the House Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham, called the redo 'part of doing business' in the Capitol.
Last year's state House was led by a predominantly Republican coalition majority. This year's House is led by a predominantly Democratic coalition. Lawmakers traditionally feel pressure to finish their work before the end of the second year of the session and adjournment 'sine die,' or without a fixed date to return.
'Being able to roll bills together on the sine die session can be a valuable tool, but I know at times it's misused, which on occasion it is, (and) it can be a real sort of nuisance,' Edgmon said. 'So I think more legislators support having that tool available if it's used sparingly and sort of judiciously. But there are some who think that it's not a necessary tool. So it's been interesting to see that sort of juxtaposition.'
House Majority Leader Chuck Kopp, R-Anchorage, said he feels good that all of the needed bills passed 'unscathed.'
By phone, Eastman said that he doesn't disagree with the policies in last year's bill, but he does worry about the process and is concerned that lawmakers could be doing things in a way that the constitution's framers didn't intend.
Even though replacement bills have passed, the lawsuit should continue, he said, in order to prevent future legislatures from trying to repeat what happened last year.
'It's not about whether I liked (the policies in the bill) or didn't like them politically. It's about whether or not we're going to create a new normal where you can put any kind of things into a bill you want from whatever source, topic or subject matter, and you can just call it good,' he said.
Eastman said the Legislature's actions last year raised a question that still isn't resolved: 'Are we going to build on that in the future and start a new direction, or are we going to go back to more the way that we've done things in the past? I hope that we go back to the way we've done things in the past.'
Attorney Joe Geldhof is representing Eastman in court.
'I'm glad it appears the Legislature enacted things according to the Constitution. This doesn't end the case. David Eastman wants, David Eastman deserves, and I'll try to get a declaration that what the Alaska Legislature did last year was unconstitutional,' Geldhof said by phone.
While the multi-subject legislation was aimed at wrapping up work before the end of the last day of the 2024 session, the House still passed five bills after midnight on that day. Gov. Mike Dunleavy later vetoed them, saying that they missed the deadline.
All five have been either re-introduced or introduced as part of a broader bill, and each of the five has either passed the Legislature or is on track to do so.
Eastman's lawsuit and the resulting legislative process are likely to change the Capitol, Kopp said. 'I think that there is going to be more of a concerted effort, not only with the single-subject rule, but also with the timing of passage of bills, not letting things get stacked up against midnight.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Massachusetts lawmakers poised to approve major cannabis bill on Wednesday
An expansive bill to restructure the embattled Cannabis Control Commission, regulate and tax hemp-based drinks and gummies that have proliferated in convenience stores, and open the door to retail-only medical marijuana businesses will go before the House of Representatives on Wednesday, having now cleared two committees without opposition. Frustration with the CCC's slow pace of regulatory changes, headline-grabbing internal conflicts and a plea from the inspector general for the Legislature to intervene at the 'rudderless agency' and revisit its 'unclear and self-contradictory' 2017 enabling statute combined last summer to get lawmakers thinking more seriously about a response. The House Ways and Means Committee on Tuesday reported out the bill (H 4160) that last week unanimously cleared the Cannabis Policy Committee, and officials said Ways and Means made no substantive changes. 'This legislation not only makes needed changes to the structure of the Cannabis Control Commission, it's also representative of the House's commitment to ensuring that the cannabis industry in Massachusetts is regulated in a manner that bolsters economic opportunity, especially for communities that were disproportionately impacted by the criminalization of marijuana,' House Speaker Ronald Mariano said. 'I look forward to hearing more from my colleagues in the House about this issue, and to ultimately voting to pass these critical reforms tomorrow.' Created by the Legislature in 2017 after voters legalized non-medical marijuana in 2016, the CCC is a five-commissioner independent body, with appointments made singularly and jointly by the governor, attorney general and treasurer, with the treasurer selecting the chair. Under the bill the House will debate Wednesday, the CCC would be consolidated entirely under the governor. The state's executive would appoint all three commissioners and select one of them to serve as chair (who would be the only full-time commissioner). The CCC would be 'subject to the laws applicable to agencies under the control of the governor.' The chair would serve conterminously with the governor, according to the bill, and the other two commissioners would each serve terms of four years, or until a successor is appointed. The bill extends beyond cannabis products that are already under the CCC's purview to address intoxicating hemp-based products that largely fall into a gray area of the law and between the regulatory cracks. Since hemp-based gummies, energy shot-like drink bottles and seltzers became ubiquitous across Massachusetts convenience store checkout counters and social media feeds in recent years, lawmakers and regulators have flagged the need to straighten out what is and is not cannabis, and how it should all be regulated. The committee bill would ban the sale of hemp-based beverages and consumable CBD products unless the product is registered with the CCC and complies with regulations that the CCC would be required to promulgate to deal with things like product testing, labeling requirements and more. Those products would also be subject to a new tax (5.35% for CBD consumables and $4.05 per gallon for hemp-based drinks). The bill adjusts the existing cap on retail licenses any one operator can hold. The current limit is three, but some business owners have said the cap prevents them from selling their businesses. Under the bill advancing towards the House, the cap on retail licenses would be raised to six over a three-year period (increasing first to four, a year later to five and finally to six), and the existing three-license caps would remain in place for cultivation and manufacturing. Opponents, including Equitable Opportunities Now and the Massachusetts Cannabis Equity Council, have warned that multistate operators are able to spend heavily to increase their market share and that allowing them to grow even more will hurt small and equity-owned businesses. 'This bill is a gift to corporate cannabis and a death sentence for local and social equity businesses. How is someone with one, two, or three stores supposed to compete with someone buying for six or more stores?' EON co-founder Shanel Lindsay said. 'It will undermine everything Massachusetts has worked so hard to achieve in building the most equitable cannabis industry in the country.' The bill also contemplates the possibility that Massachusetts might want to cap the total number of licenses granted by the CCC. It would require the CCC to conduct an economic analysis of the entire cannabis industry and gives the CCC the power to limit the total number of licenses issued based on that study. EON pointed to a number of the bill's provisions that it views as positive steps for the industry, including medical vertical deintegration and increasing the daily purchase limit to two ounces, but the group said it would prefer no legislative action to 'a flawed bill that gives control of the market and policymaking to the largest, most profitable businesses.' 'We appreciate action on medical deintegration, enforcing ownership limits, and other overdue reforms — but handing more power to big cannabis and gutting the CCC's independence are poison pills,' EON Deputy Director Kevin Gilnack said. 'Most cannabis businesses would be better off if the Legislature did nothing.' On the medical side of the legal marijuana world, the bill eliminates the requirement that medical marijuana businesses be 'vertically integrated,' meaning they must grow and process all the marijuana they sell. Patients and advocates have been calling for that change for years, saying the medical-only options have become scarce across Massachusetts since cannabis was legalized for non-medical use. It includes language that would let the CCC 'establish and provide for issuance of additional types or classes of licenses to operate medical use of marijuana-related businesses' and would change the standard terminology in state law from 'medical marijuana treatment center' to 'medical marijuana establishment.' Medical marijuana retail licenses would be available exclusively to social equity applicants for at least the first three years they are available. The House Ways and Means Committee advanced the bill with 23 Democrats in support, no committee members opposed, eight Republicans electing to essentially abstain from the committee vote, and five Boston Democrats taking no action on the committee poll. Asked about the Cannabis Policy Committee's bill last week, House Ways and Means Committee Chair Aaron Michlewitz said he was 'hopeful to do it soon' and that the House would 'make it a priority to kind of get through it as quickly as we can.' Top Senate Democrats haven't expressed the same sense of urgency on the CCC. 'I will talk to senators and the chair of the Cannabis Committee, and we'll see. We'll take a look at whatever the House sends over, of course,' Senate President Karen Spilka said Thursday. Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts. Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal judge halts Florida's social media ban for kids
A federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction against Florida's HB 3, a law regarding youth and social media accounts. Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker in Tallahassee says in court documents obtained by FOX Business that the law is a violation of the First Amendment's protections on free speech. Walker's ruling on Tuesday sides with trade groups NetChoice and Computer and Communications Industry Association, putting HB 3 on hold until the litigation is resolved. "Today's ruling is yet another affirmation that the government cannot control or censor online speech. Like all Americans, Floridians have the right to access lawful speech without the government controlling what they say, share or see online," Chris Marchese, NetChoice Director of Litigation, said in a statement. Texas Bill Pushes Strictest Social Media Ban For Minors In The Nation "Lawmakers should focus on real, constitutional alternatives that respect both family autonomy and free speech," he continued. Read On The Fox Business App Jeremy Redfern, a spokesman for Republican Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, whose office is defending the law, said in a statement obtained by Reuters that the "platforms do not have a constitutional right to addict kids to their products." Uthmeier's office plans to appeal it to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, he said. Snapchat 'Openly Defying' Law, Allowing Kids Access To Harmful, Addictive Content: Florida Ag HB 3 requires social media platforms to bar users under the age of 14 and requires users under 16 to get parental consent before opening an account. It was supposed to go into effect Jan. 1, but was put on hold due to litigation. NetChoice, which represents social media platforms, has won injunctions in recent months against similar laws in Utah and California that restricted the use of social media platforms by youths. Click Here To Read More On Fox Business In Tuesday's ruling, Walker said he appreciated that parents are concerned about their children's social media use, but that other, unchallenged provisions of the law offered them recourse. The industry groups did not address some parts of the law that directed social media companies to delete youth accounts at parental request. Reuters contributed to this report. Original article source: Federal judge halts Florida's social media ban for kids
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump defeats Democrats' lawsuit over election commission independence
By Jonathan Stempel (Reuters) -A Washington, D.C. judge has dismissed the Democratic Party's lawsuit accusing U.S. President Donald Trump of violating federal election law by trying to assert control over the independent Federal Election Commission. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled on Tuesday night that three national Democratic committees lacked a "concrete and imminent injury" to justify suing now, because they did not show Trump would violate election law. The lawsuit filed on February 28 was the Democratic Party's first against Trump during the Republican's second White House term. Hundreds of lawsuits challenging the administration's actions have been filed. Neither the Democratic party nor its lawyers immediately responded to requests for comment on Wednesday. The White House did not immediately respond to a similar request. Democrats challenged Trump's February 18 executive order giving the White House more control over traditionally independent agencies including the election commission, National Labor Relations Board and Securities and Exchange Commission. They objected to language making Trump's and Attorney General Pam Bondi's views on questions of law "controlling" for federal employees performing their official duties, and bans executive branch employees from advancing contrary views. The plaintiffs included the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. In a 14-page decision, Ali said White House lawyers assured that the administration would not invoke Trump's order to dictate election commission activity, and commissioners would not interpret the order as a command to vote a particular way. Ali, an appointee of Democratic President Joe Biden, also found no imminent injury based on Democrats' claim they were "chilled" from pursuing campaign strategies because a Trump-controlled election commission might reject them. "The court does not doubt that the committees would have cause for profound concern were the FEC's independence to be compromised," the judge wrote. But he said Supreme Court precedent required the committees to show that their relationship with the bipartisan commission has changed or will change. "They have not done so," he said. The election commission oversees elections and enforces campaign finance laws. Congress created it in 1974 in the wake of the Watergate scandal. The case is Democratic National Committee et al v Trump et al, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, No. 25-00587.
