As America celebrates 250 years of independence, I have reflected on the courage and convictions of our Founding Fathers. They did not begin by seeking conflict with the greatest military power on earth. They simply stood for what they knew to be true: that our rights come from God, not from government, and that no person should be forced into silence for defending those rights.

Likewise, I did not set out to run for office to challenge the media or engage in controversy. I began by standing up for the people in my community and speaking on behalf of citizens who felt unheard.

For that reason, I respectfully disagree with the probable cause finding of the Alaska House Subcommittee of the Select Committee on Legislative Ethics regarding the eighteen coordinated complaints filed against me over a letter I wrote to the owners of the Homer News. In that letter, I challenged what I believe was unfair and biased coverage surrounding the memorial event I organized to honor Charlie Kirk.

Using legislative procedures to punish or discourage elected officials from expressing their constituents’ concerns sets a dangerous precedent and risks turning disagreement into a tool for silencing opposition.

The irony is not lost on me. The committee contends that calling out partisan bias somehow constitutes partisan political activity. Nor is it lost on my constituents that Charlie Kirk paid the ultimate price for exercising his constitutional right to peaceful free speech, losing his life in an act of political violence. Now, in defending his memory and speaking openly about issues that matter to my community, I find my own speech being scrutinized through a process that many view as an attempt to silence dissent.

I also believe it is important to distinguish between government resources and personal expression. I designed my own legislative letterhead. I created and maintain the social media pages of Representative Sarah Vance. Those platforms were not issued, created, or operated by the Legislature. They are my means of communicating directly with the people I represent and are expressions of my own speech and convictions.

When a governmental body, or one exercising governmental authority, attempts to dictate how an elected representative may communicate with her constituents, it stands on shaky ground. Representative government depends upon robust debate, disagreement, and the freedom to challenge powerful institutions, including the press.

History teaches us that authoritarian and communist regimes silence disagreement and tightly control the speech of public officials to preserve conformity and suppress dissent. That is not the American tradition. Today is a good day to remember that we are a constitutional republic founded on the rule of law, not the rule of men. For nearly 250 years, our nation has remained strong because we have protected the freedom to speak, to disagree, and to petition our government without fear.

Years ago, the people of my district asked me to keep speaking for them and never stop fighting for their concerns. I gave them my word, and I intend to keep it.

Disagreement is not unethical misconduct. The fact that individuals in my district oppose my views does not make my words partisan. It makes them contested in a free society. Using legislative procedures to punish or discourage elected officials from expressing their constituents’ concerns sets a dangerous precedent and risks turning disagreement into a tool for silencing opposition.

America’s 250th anniversary reminds us that liberty requires courage. The freedoms secured by our Founders and protected by generations of Americans since depend on citizens and their representatives being willing to speak the truth as they see it, even when it is unpopular.

I will continue to do so, respectfully, faithfully, and without apology.

The views expressed here are those of the author.

Click here to support the Alaska Watchman.