In Alaska, the grand jury was never meant to be only a charging body for criminal cases.

It was designed to be something more – a citizen-led check on government itself. A body that could investigate agencies, raise concerns about public welfare and safety, and report findings to the people. The framers made clear the grand jury’s power to investigate and make recommendations must never be suspended.

At a time when decisions about the Territory were made far away, our framers and residents believed government should answer to the people – not the other way around. Alaskans still believe this. One of the strongest tools the framers gave us to ensure accountability was the grand jury.

But something has happened.

If Alaskans attempt to use the tool today to raise concerns about agencies and seek accountability, they encounter a process that is slow, complex, and difficult to navigate – an unclear pathway, hard to access, or that could even be blocked.

Another key issue is transparency. This relates to the people’s connection as well but refers to the grand jury’s power to issue recommendations at the end of the process.

What happened?

An April 2 article in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, titled “The Original Meaning and Understanding of the Investigative Power of the Grand Jury in the Constitution of Alaska,” confirmed what I had concluded through observation in recent years: changes in the system were interfering, diminishing, and even suspending the grand jury’s Constitutional power.

The Harvard Journal article’s conclusion was direct.

The authors found under our Constitution that the executive branch does not have authority to act as a gatekeeper by screening or filtering citizen petitions before they reach a grand jury. They also concluded courts do not have authority to withhold, seal, or suppress grand jury reports addressing matters of public concern. According to the article, both practices, one at the beginning of the process and one at the end, conflict with the Constitution because they interrupt the connection the framers intended between the people and the grand jury.

Supreme Court Order 1993, crafted with assistance from the Alaska Department of Law, added structure to how concerns reach a grand jury, but the result was a filtered process controlled by government with a built-in conflict of interest difficult to circumvent. SCO 1993 interferes with the people’s connection to the grand jury and its power to investigate at the beginning of the process.

Another key issue is transparency. This relates to the people’s connection as well but refers to the grand jury’s power to issue recommendations at the end of the process.

Yes, when issuing reports to the public, there’s a real need to protect individual rights and due process. But when a grand jury examines government conduct, the public has the right to know the outcome and what the grand jury’s recommendations are to solve a problem if there is one – and the grand jury has the right and the power to issue those recommendations. With appropriate safeguards – like redacting names where necessary – it’s possible to balance accountability and fairness and to protect individual rights.

I will use the governor’s platform to reaffirm the importance of an independent grand jury as a meaningful avenue for citizen oversight. I will speak directly to this in my inaugural address…

We must make sure our systems are aligned with the Constitution and working as effectively as possible for the people they serve.

As governor, I will take that responsibility seriously.

First, I will ensure a transparent review of Supreme Court Order 1993. To comply with the Constitution, I will work to remove the executive branch, along with the related conflict of interest, from the grand jury process – if that change isn’t enacted as part of the effort currently underway in the Judiciary branch to address grand jury issues.

Second, I will bring together a broad group – constitutional scholars, former grand jurors, legal experts, and citizens with firsthand experience – to help guide reforms grounded and collaborate with the judicial branch with the goal that Article 1, Section 8 will function as our framers intended. From larger concepts of constitutionality (such as releasing withheld reports) to smaller details (such as requiring enough alternate jurors so the grand jury consists of at least twelve members at all times), we will work without reserve to uphold the grand jury clause.

Third, I will use the governor’s platform to reaffirm the importance of an independent grand jury as a meaningful avenue for citizen oversight. I will speak directly to this in my inaugural address, underscoring that my administration will respect and defend the people’s role in holding government accountable.

This is ultimately about trust.

Alaskans need to know that when concerns arise, there is a clear and accessible path to be heard – and that the system can respond in a fair and transparent way.

Success will look like this: an Alaska where citizens can raise legitimate concerns with confidence, and where the grand jury system functions as a true bridge between the people and their government.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about the government answering to the people; it’s about a government of, for, and by the people. It’s about trust. It’s about honoring our Constitution and strengthening the connection between Alaskans and the institutions that serve them.

The grand jury belongs to the people. It’s time we ensure it works that way.

The views expressed here are those of the author.

Click here to support the Alaska Watchman.