Earlier this month, during a budget session in the Alaska House, Rep. David Eastman of Wasilla offered an important amendment to help grand juries exercise their broad constitutional powers under Article I, Section 8, of Alaska’s Constitution.

His amendment #1 to Amendment 135 proposed allocating one million dollars from the legislature’s operating budget to grand juries, specifically for the purpose of hiring independent special prosecutors to help advise them. The proposal would not have impacted any funding for the executive or judicial branches, or the PFD.

Eastman introduced his amendment as necessary to “make adequate provision for our grand juries to have the money and resources available to effectively fulfill” its power to investigate and report on matters of public concern.

Under his proposal, grand juries in each of Alaska’s four judicial districts would be entitled to spend up to $250,000 in the coming fiscal year to retain special prosecutors of their choosing. Eastman emphasized that spending these funds was not a requirement but would be at the discretion of the grand juries.

[Grand juries] retain the right to reject any advisors the Department of Law sends their way. In those instances, they need funds to hire their own advisors.

Rep. Andy Josephson of Anchorage was the only legislator who spoke in opposition to Eastman’s amendment. Josephson prefaced his remarks by saying he needed more time to look at it, but it soon became evident he didn’t have a good understanding of the independence of grand juries baked into our State Constitution.

Josephson opposed the amendment saying the executive branch provides “high ranking, skilled attorneys” to “guide” investigations. He noted the Department of Law was “accommodating” of grand jury investigations but didn’t acknowledge the right of grand juries to choose their own legal advisors. He concluded his remarks by urging his colleagues to join him in opposition.

Eastman’s ensuing response cut straight to the heart of the matter. He said, “what we are talking about is, who owns the grand jury?” 

Eastman explained, “We don’t find in our constitution the grand jury appearing under Article III, it’s not housed in the executive branch, we don’t find it housed in the judicial branch. That’s not the portion of our constitution that speaks to the grand jury. It’s in Article 1, separate from these other institutions, and so it should not be limited in its selection of a special prosecutor to someone that is employed by or hired by another branch of government. It is its own entity. It should have the discretion.”

Currently, many Alaskan citizens are objecting to the attorney general deciding which attorneys will “guide” the grand jury.

Eastman was 100% correct, and has the authority of the United States Supreme Court to back him up. Discussing the nature of a grand jury in its 1992 Williams opinion the Court stated, “the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the government and the people.”

Like the legislative branch, grand juries are not subservient to the executive branch. They retain the right to reject any advisors the Department of Law sends their way. In those instances, they need funds to hire their own advisors.

I’m pretty sure Josephson would object if an attorney general decided which attorneys can “guide” the legislature. Currently, many Alaskan citizens are objecting to the attorney general deciding which attorneys will “guide” the grand jury. Especially when the grand jury wants to investigate the Department of Law or another part of the executive branch like the Office of Children’s Services. It’s a blatant conflict of interest.

For the past several years, Alaskans have seen what happens when grand juries try to investigate state corruption. Those investigations have been easily hijacked by attorney generals who control the employment of the attorneys they assign to the grand jury. The “high ranking attorneys” referenced by Josephson are particularly vulnerable to these conflicts. Obviously, they have a lot to lose if they try to stand solo against the governor or attorney general.

Unfortunately, the majority of the Alaska House sided with Josephson instead of Eastman and the amendment was voted down 33-7. The six representatives who supported Eastman’s proposal were Rep. Jamie Allard, Rep. Ben Carpenter, Rep. Julie Coulombe, Rep. George Rauscher, Rep. Frank Tomaszewski and Rep. Sarah Vance.

If you support an independent grand jury equipped with the tools to expose government negligence or corruption, contact our elected officials. I plan to send this article to each of the 33 representatives who voted no, asking if they will change their position and if not, why.

After Eastman’s amendment was rejected, he told his colleagues, “I can hope that we will take up this critical issue in other legislation.  I certainly stand on behalf of my constituents to be a ready and willing contributor to that discussion.”

The final passage of the budget, anticipated to be around 11 billion dollars, is likely at least a month away. One million dollars out of that budget is essentially a rounding error, a mere .00009091 of the total.

Judge Francis Hopkinson, a signor of the Declaration of Independence, called the grand jury “a body of truth and power inferior to none but the legislature itself.” Such a vital function of our democracy certainly deserves a lot more than one million dollars out of an eleven-billion-dollar budget. Urge your elected representatives to support funding of at least four million dollars, one for each judicial district.

The views expressed here are those of the author.

Click here to support the Alaska Watchman.