Alaska State Rep. David Eastman (R-Wasilla) cannot be disqualified from holding public office simply because he is a member of the nation Oath Keepers organization.
This was the final ruling, issued Dec. 23, by Anchorage Superior Court Judge Jack McKenna in a lawsuit which aimed to ban Eastman from the State Legislature.
Plaintiffs argued that Eastman should be banned from holding state office because the Alaska Constitution prohibits citizens from serving in public office if they are members of an organization that seeks to violently overthrow the government.
While the judge agreed with the plaintiffs assertion that Oath Keepers advocates for violent overthrow of the government, he said membership in the organization is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The judge then noted that the wording of Alaska’s disloyalty clause seems to run contrary to the First Amendment.
Eastman easily won reelection to a fourth consecutive term in the State House last month, but his victory has not yet been certified, after McKenna ordered the Division of Elections to delay certification until after the trial. In the Dec. 23 ruling, McKenna said the delay order remains in place until plaintiffs have a chance to appeal his decision.
Eastman joined Oath Keepers more than a decade ago, but has had minimal association with the groups outside of a few small donations.
The Oath Keepers has been at the center of national discussions since Jan. 6, 2021, after a small group of the 38,000-member organization took part in the events that unfolded at the U.S. Capitol.
Eastman attended the Jan. 6 rally, along with tens of thousands of other peaceful attendees, but he never marched on the Capitol, nor has he ever advocated for the overthrow of the government.
McKenna’s final ruling said mere membership in a group such as Oath Keepers cannot be grounds for barring someone from serving in public office, even if the Alaska Constitution indicates otherwise.
McKenna observed that the Alaska Constitution’s disloyalty clause, which is identical to Hawaii’s statehood act, was originally meant to address concerns about “alleged communist activity in Hawaii at the time.”
To bar a person from public office, merely on the basis of their “protected associational rights is that type of ‘guilt’ by association’ that the Supreme Court disapproved of,” McKenna wrote.
Alaska’s delegates thought such wording was necessary for Alaska to be admitted to the union, he added
“However, no substantive conversations or debate took place on the meaning of the provision,” McKenna wrote. He added that the provision has never been applied in Alaska case law, but that it must be interpreted in harmony with the U.S. Constitution.
The judge then noted that the wording of Alaska’s disloyalty clause seems to run contrary to the First Amendment.
“The First Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that a person’s otherwise lawful association with an organization may not be burdened by state action unless the person has a specific intent to further the illegal aims of that organization,” the judge wrote.
Additionally, he observed that Alaska’s Constitution must comply with the First Amendment which prohibits laws abridging the freedom of speech.
“Included within the right to free speech is the right to associate with others to engage in protected speech,” McKenna wrote.
ALASKA WATCHMAN DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX
He then cited several landmark U.S. Supreme Court rulings, including Healy v. James (1972), which ruled that a student group could not be denied recognition at a state-supported college merely because of its affiliation with a national organization associated with disruptive and violent campus activity.
“The Court went on to hold that in order for state law to restrict First Amendment rights based upon a person’s association with a group, there must be a ‘knowing affiliation with an organization possessing unlawful aims and goals, and a specific intent to further those illegal aims.’”
To bar a person from public office, merely on the basis of their “protected associational rights is that type of ‘guilt’ by association’ that the Supreme Court disapproved of,” McKenna wrote.
He concluded his ruling by noting that while Eastman was a member of the Oath Keepers, he “did not possess a specific intent to further the Oath Keeper’s words or actions aimed at overthrowing the United States government.”
McKenna delayed the implementation of his ruling, pending a possible appeal. This means the Division of Elections cannot certify Eastman’s Nov. 8 election victory until at least Jan. 4, 2023, when the court plans to address whether an appeal has been filed.
15 Comments
I bet Mr. Kowalke is levied. He’s one of those people you don’t say no to, or so he thinks! I glad the judge came to his senses and ruled for Representative Eastman but I not happy he hasn’t allowed the certification of tge election now. Representative Eastman needs to get prepared for the next session in Juneau. It’s time to put this sham trail to bed and move on.
I’m not sure what happened to the “judge”.. Holiday overdose ? .. Or, maybe he had some actual counseling on the law.. In either case. I am surprised with his decision.. I am glad that Eastman survived that sham challenge.
To think that being an Oathkeeper as a politician would be a scourge…. Oh thats right for David to fit in this class of folk that occupy our State
govt truth telling honor and Oath are an actual detriment to oneself…. Stay strong Sir,,,Trust GOD.
I had two different thoughts when I read, “While the judge agreed with the plaintiffs assertion that Oath Keepers advocates for violent overthrow of the government, he said membership in the organization is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.” First, imho, the judge is inserting his own personal belief when he spoke about the Oath Keepers actions on j6. Second, he mentioned the First Amendment. I think that the judge is leaving the ammo box open for Kowalke to load up again. Additionally, we know that the government wants to do away with our rights. One other thing that I feel concern about is that McKenna mentions Hawaii while talking about this ruling. Hawaii is a demorat stronghold. I have a problem with our local credit union (MVFCU) having an office in Hawaii since 2011 or so (during Obama’s time) and I think that our local credit union does not feel like a safe-for-conservatives, local credit union anymore. Anyway, I am glad that Rep. Eastman won this case and I pray that God shields him from Kowalke and the others trying to get him removed from office. Good things coming with Eastman working for our state!
Hooray! Praise God. This was a right ruling.
“he said membership in the organization is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.” Why didn’t the judge realize his statement before the trial? Was the judge just looking for notoriety? This proves to me the judge is a sham member of the Bar Association. If the judge didn’t realize this when the request to toss the suit out he shouldn’t be sitting on the bench.
“In this case, the court finds that the Oath Keepers are an organization that has, through words and conduct, taken concrete action to attempt to overthrow by violence the United States government. The court further finds that Rep. Eastman is a member of that organization, “
This ruling completely blows up this groups house of cards. Its telling that the judge stayed theirnown ruling. Because this very paragraph of finding makes Eastman ineligible per the STATE Constitution. You guys actually have to beg that the FED Courts invalidate part of our state Constitution that We The People put into place. This forum -constantly- harps on how awful and evil it was for a fed judge to trample states rights and invalidate the ban on gay marriage. Now you are begging them to do the same thing again. The irony is sweet!
So who pays the Eastman’s legal fees now?
Alaska is on the wrong path supporting a member of a terrorist group.
Jon, what’s your opinion of BLM and Antifa? I’m interested in your reference point?
Alaska is on the right path refusing to destroy a man on the basis of association only. The real terrorists are those who use these tactics to get people out of office so they can have it.
So glad Rep. Eastman won the case. That’s the result of right living through faith.
I voted for Eastman numerous times and still would. First of all he’s a Veteran, second the Oath keepers stand for the Constitution and keeping it safe. This may mean throwing out rogue players like election Stealers, china agents like the bidens, Gestapo fbi, and others
Yes, God has promised that when we stand for Him, He will stand for us. The Sixth Commandment says “thou shall not murder.” We are guilty of breaking that commandment when we murder someone’s character which is what has been attempted in this case.
No liberals complained when the Communist Party endorsed obama.
Communists and other anti-American party members can run for any office in the USA.
WE’ were praying this judge, had actual sense, ethics and a moral compass to rule lawfully. This witch hunt was right out of past phony ‘show trials ‘that sent thousands to the gulags and death during USSR times. This is here and now.