Alaska Gov. Dunleavy asks some lawmakers to stay away from special session he called
In a meeting with Republican members of the Alaska House of Representatives on Wednesday, Gov. Mike Dunleavy had what he called an 'unorthodox' request.
He asked that the 19 members of the House's Republican minority caucus stay away from the first five days of a special legislative session he called for Aug. 2 in Juneau.
Under the Alaska Constitution, the Legislature must vote to override or sustain a governor's vetoes in the first regular or special session following the vetoes. If those Republicans are absent, it increases the odds that his vetoes will be sustained.
An absence is as good as a 'no' vote when it comes to getting the 45 votes needed to override a veto of line items in a budget bill or the 40 votes needed to override a veto of a policy bill.
In May, lawmakers voted 46-14 to override Dunleavy's veto of a policy bill that permanently increases the state's public-school funding formula. Eight of the 19 House minority members voted for the override.
Now, they're being asked whether to override the governor's decision to only partially fund that formula.
The governor's opponents will have a difficult task. Some lawmakers, including Sen. Forrest Dunbar, D-Anchorage, are expected to be unavailable for the special session. Dunbar has been deployed with the National Guard in Poland.
Others may have family commitments that are obstacles to attending. If minority-caucus legislators heed the governor's request and avoid the special session, they will be largely immune to last-minute lobbying by their colleagues or members of the public.
'If you want the veto override to fail, when we're talking about less than $50 million here on a multibillion-dollar budget, I guess you pull out every stop, and this is a stop that I've not seen pulled out by any governor,' said Speaker of the House Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham and a supporter of the override.
Reporters were not invited to the meeting between the governor and the House minority, but Jeff Turner, the governor's communications director, confirmed the details, first reported by KTUU-TV.
'Governor Dunleavy asked house minority members to not show up for the first five days of session because like any governor, he does not want his vetoes overturned,' he said by email.
Dunleavy has designated education policy and the creation of a Department of Agriculture as the subjects of the special session. Turner said the governor planned to introduce an education bill for lawmakers to consider during the session.
'Arriving on the sixth day also means legislators begin the session with a clean slate for conversations on public education reform policies. The Governor is also willing to reinstate the $200 BSA increase, if he and lawmakers can reach an agreement on the education bill he will introduce next month,' Turner said.
House Minority Leader Mia Costello, R-Anchorage, did not return a call seeking comment, but other members of the minority spoke freely about the governor's request.
'I will use the governor's exact word: Unorthodox. It was definitely an unorthodox request that took me by surprise,' said Rep. Justin Ruffridge, R-Soldotna.
While the governor's official special session proclamation lists education and a proposed Alaska Department of Agriculture on its agenda, 'he was very clear that a big portion of the strategy for him was, he did not want to be overridden on anything: bills, budget, all of it.'
Ruffridge voted in favor of the prior override and indicated that he's willing to vote the same way in a special session.
'I've taken the approach sort of since day one, that if I vote yes on something, that my yes means something, I know that probably doesn't always align with the political winds that might blow, but I think that's something that my constituents at least respect,' he said.
Ruffridge said he absolutely intends to show up at the special session.
'If a special session is called, I think all representatives and senators have an obligation to attempt to be there, if at all possible,' Ruffridge said. 'I think that's part of what we signed up for when we signed up to do the job. And I mean, if you're not going to show up, I think essentially, you're just afraid of taking hard votes at that point.'
Rep. Jamie Allard, R-Eagle River, has a different perspective.
'I think that's fine,' she said of the governor's request. 'It costs a lot of money. It's $300 per diem per day. You have to pay for flights and hotels. I think it's a good idea. Those who do want to continue to override, they could go ahead and go down there, and those of us who don't, it's an automatic no vote for us when we don't go there to vote.'
'My job is to make sure we save as much money as possible,' she said. 'And again, if we're not in Juneau, it's an automatic no vote. If you show up in Juneau, then I believe those individuals are going to be voting yes or wasting taxpayer dime.'
Jeremy Bynum, the Republican representative from Ketchikan, said he intends to show up in Juneau on Aug. 2, even though it means missing Ketchikan's largest annual celebration, the blueberry festival.
He's interested in attending the special session because he hopes that legislators will take up education policy, even though he doubts that will happen.
The multipartisan House majority caucus controls the legislative agenda, and it isn't clear that there is sufficient common ground between the majority and the governor to enable progress.
Rep. DeLena Johnson, R-Palmer, said she's still considering her options and is undecided about whether to travel to Juneau.
Before the House minority's meeting with the governor, Rep. Kevin McCabe, R-Big Lake, said he doesn't see the governor's call for a special session as significantly different from legislative committees' attempts to advance or derail legislation by using legislative procedures or schedules. He pointed to the way that the Senate Finance Committee has used take-it-or-leave-it tactics with regard to the state budget.
Rep. Elexie Moore of Wasilla said she's likely to attend in order to vote against an override and to sustain the governor's veto.
Earlier this year, she was absent from the Capitol on a day that unexpectedly brought a key vote on the Permanent Fund dividend.
She was dragged on social media for three weeks afterward, she said by phone.
People expect their legislators to be in the Capitol, she said, and most people aren't able to follow the maneuvering that might explain an absence.
'I think that's the perspective of somebody who doesn't understand what it means not to go,' Allard said when told about Moore's thinking. '(Not attending the session) means that you're a no vote. But if she wants to go and spend, you know, $5,000 to $10,000 in taxpayer money, that's fine. I understand she was dragged on social media, but those were some bad decisions that were made — not necessarily by her — but on information about what she was doing. But I would recommend that she stay with the caucus and don't go down there.'
'I think it's a good idea,' said Rep. Mike Prax, R-North Pole, about the governor's request.
Prax supports the governor's position and said he believes the special session is a good idea, because it settles the school funding issue early. Without a special session, lawmakers would have to wait until January to decide whether to override or sustain the governor's decisions.
The Fairbanks North Star Borough school board voted in June to finalize a budget that expects lawmakers to override the governor.
If an override fails, Prax said, it's better that it fails early, so the district can change its budget before school begins.
While members of the House and Senate majority caucuses have indicated that they intend to take up only the veto overrides during the special session, Prax said he hopes lawmakers will stay and consider education policy.
While lawmakers have convened an education task force to discuss future changes, he doubts the effectiveness of that group, given the Legislature's failure to adopt the recommendations of a prior fiscal policy working group. The task force deadline to make recommendations is January 2027, after the next election.
'I am not at all optimistic that there's even any intention, frankly, of the task force coming up with something,' he said.
Edgmon, the House speaker, said that his recommendation 'to any legislator, is to show up to Juneau, get their work done and make the tough vote whether they are a yea or a nay.'
Legislative rules allow any lawmaker to issue a 'call on the House' that compels legislators to attend. Edgmon said that might be deemed dilatory and out of order in this case.
In the end, will absences even matter? Lawmakers who stay away are likely to be those most likely to support the governor.
'That could be the case for sure,' Edgmon said, 'and it'll be the voters in their districts that will judge whether or not they're doing the right thing.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
President Donald Trump branded, browbeat and prevailed. But his big bill may come at a political cost
WASHINGTON — Barack Obama had the Affordable Care Act. Joe Biden had the Inflation Reduction Act. President Donald Trump will have the tax cuts. All were hailed in the moment and became ripe political targets in campaigns that followed. In Trump's case, the tax cuts may almost become lost in the debates over other parts of the multitrillion-dollar bill that Democrats say will force poor Americans off their health care and overturn a decade or more of energy policy. Through persuasion and browbeating, Trump forced nearly all congressional Republicans to line up behind his marquee legislation despite some of its unpalatable pieces. He followed the playbook that had marked his life in business before politics. He focused on branding — labeling the legislation the 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' — then relentlessly pushed to strong-arm it through Congress, solely on the votes of Republicans. But Trump's victory will soon be tested during the 2026 midterm elections where Democrats plan to run on a durable theme: that the Republican president favors the rich on tax cuts over poorer people who will lose their health care. Trump and Republicans argue that those who deserve coverage will retain it. Nonpartisan analysts, however, project significant increases to the number of uninsured. Meanwhile, the GOP's promise that the bill will turbocharge the economy will be tested at a time of uncertainty and trade turmoil. Trump has tried to counter the notion of favoring the rich with provisions that would reduce the taxes for people paid in tips and receiving overtime pay, two kinds of earners who represent a small share of the workforce. Extending the tax cuts from Trump's first term that were set to expire if Congress failed to act meant he could also argue that millions of people would avoid a tax increase. To enact that and other expensive priorities, Republicans made steep cuts to Medicaid that ultimately belied Trump's promise that those on government entitlement programs 'won't be affected.' 'The biggest thing is, he's answering the call of the forgotten people. That's why his No. 1 request was the no tax on tips, the no tax on overtime, tax relief for seniors,' said Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. 'I think that's going to be the big impact.' Presidents have seen their signature legislative accomplishments unraveled by their successors or become a significant political liability for their party in subsequent elections. A central case for Biden's reelection was that the public would reward the Democrat for his legislative accomplishments. That never bore fruit as he struggled to improve his poll numbers driven down by concerns about his age and stubborn inflation. Since taking office in January, Trump has acted to gut tax breaks meant to boost clean energy initiatives that were part of Biden's landmark health care-and-climate bill. Obama's health overhaul, which the Democrat signed into law in March 2010, led to a political bloodbath in the midterms that fall. Its popularity only became potent when Republicans tried to repeal it in 2017. Whatever political boost Trump may have gotten from his first-term tax cuts in 2017 did not help him in the 2018 midterms, when Democrats regained control of the House, or in 2020 when he lost to Biden. 'I don't think there's much if any evidence from recent or even not-so-recent history of the president's party passing a big one-party bill and getting rewarded for it,' said Kyle Kondik, an elections analyst with the nonpartisan University of Virginia's Center for Politics. Democrats hope they can translate their policy losses into political gains. During an Oval Office appearance in January, Trump pledged he would 'love and cherish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.' 'We're not going to do anything with that, other than if we can find some abuse or waste, we'll do something,' Trump said. 'But the people won't be affected. It will only be more effective and better.' That promise is far removed from what Trump and the Republican Party ultimately chose to do, paring back not only Medicaid but also food assistance for the poor to make the math work on their sweeping bill. It would force 11.8 million more people to become uninsured by 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office, whose estimates the GOP has dismissed. 'In Trump's first term, Democrats in Congress prevented bad outcomes. They didn't repeal the (Affordable Care Act), and we did COVID relief together. This time is different,' said Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii. 'Hospitals will close, people will die, the cost of electricity will go up, and people will go without food.' Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., repeatedly argued the legislation would lead to drastic coverage losses in his home state and others, leaving them vulnerable to political attacks similar to what Democrats faced after they enacted 'Obamacare.' With his warnings unheeded, Tillis announced he would not run for reelection, after he opposed advancing the bill and enduring Trump's criticism. 'If there is a political dimension to this, it is the extraordinary impact that you're going to have in states like California, blue states with red districts,' Tillis said. 'The narrative is going to be overwhelmingly negative in states like California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey.' Even Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who eventually became the decisive vote in the Senate that ensured the bill's passage, said the legislation needed more work and she urged the House to revise it. Lawmakers there did not. Early polling suggests that Trump's bill is deeply unpopular, including among independents and a healthy share of Republicans. White House officials said their own research does not reflect that. So far, it's only Republicans celebrating the victory. That seems OK with the president. In a speech in Iowa after the bill passed, he said Democrats only opposed it because they 'hated Trump.' That didn't bother him, he said, 'because I hate them, too.'
Washington Post
2 hours ago
- Washington Post
Your kid is getting a ‘Trump account.' Should you put your money in it?
Republicans' 'big, beautiful bill' includes a gift to millions of families: $1,000 in an investment account for every eligible newborn. The new savings vehicles, akin to Individual Retirement Accounts, are designated for children who are U.S. citizens born from 2025 through 2028. In addition to the one-time government contribution, parents and others can chip in as much as $5,000 a year to the accounts, which beneficiaries can access at 18, with some constraints.
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Gen Z's declining patriotism worries me. Partisanship shouldn't define us.
There is now a massive generational and partisan divide in how much pride people have in being American. I don't know how to solve it, but I know why those who are losing faith in America are wrong. Show Caption A Gallup poll reveals a growing partisan divide in American patriotism, with Republicans expressing significantly more pride than Democrats. Democratic patriotism appears tied to the party in power, fluctuating with presidential administrations. Generation Z exhibits the lowest levels of patriotism compared to previous generations. Every year, Gallup conducts a poll on the patriotic leanings of Americans across all sorts of demographics. In recent years, this poll has produced worrying results. There is now a massive generational and partisan divide in how much pride people have in being American. I don't know how to solve it, but I know why those who are losing faith in America are wrong. In the 2025 iteration of this poll, a staggering 92% of Republicans were 'extremely' or 'very' proud to be American, whereas just 53% of independents and 36% of Democrats reported feeling the same. Until 2016, Democrats and Republicans remained rather similar in their patriotism, with both reaching values above 80% before the election of President Donald Trump. However, modern patriotism among Democrats is dependent on who is in the White House, rather than any genuine love of America. During the time that Joe Biden was in the White House, Republican pride in being American bottomed out at 84%. Over the same period, Democrats rose to a peak of just 62%. One significant driver of this decline is Generation Z, born between 1997 to 2012, whose patriotism lags far behind previous generations. Just 41% of Gen Z is extremely or very proud to be American, and among young Democrats, that falls to just 24%. Partisanship is getting in the way of patriotism for Democrats Being proud to be American has absolutely nothing to do with being proud of our current leaders. In their fluctuations in pride depending on who is in the White House, Democrats have lost sight of this. I am one of the most critical people of our government out there, and I think of that as being borne out of my patriotism. Criticizing the government when it does not strengthen America's foundational principles is a patriotic act. My fellow columnist Rex Huppke has the right idea. 'We can love this country and loathe the people in charge,' he wrote in a recent column. 'We can be simultaneously proud of this country and embarrassed of the things being done in its name.' Now, obviously, I am no Democrat, but it saddens me that this same principle apparently does not hold for many of them. To many Democrats in modern times, it seems as if their love for this country is contingent on their preferred candidates being in power. Interestingly, this seems to be a problem unique to Democrats. While some Republicans seemingly faltered in their patriotism over the previous four years, they did not see the massive swing between the Biden and Trump presidencies that Democrats saw over the same period. This is all evidence of the fact that Democrats have attached their pride to a political movement, rather than to a love of America's founding principles. For some, this is a problem of them simply being blinded by partisanship. For others, however, it marks a much deeper problem. America's failures to live up to her founding principles at times are not evidence of those principles being bad; they are evidence of human nature being imperfect. Gen Z doesn't know how good we have it Much of Gen Z has been captured by the progressive left, many of whom do genuinely believe that America's institutions and system of government need to be torn down completely. These revolutionaries are responsible for the complete lack of patriotism among Gen Z. Gen Z doesn't realize how lucky we are. We live in the greatest country and in the greatest time in history. There is no collective group that has it better at any point in history than we do right now. Many will disagree with me on this point, but they are mistaken. There is no place better constructed to safeguard your individual liberties than here. While we are very obviously imperfect in that goal, no other nation on earth is better equipped to pursue liberty through the freedoms that our Constitution protects. Tearing down the system that has led to such a wonderful place would be a mistake. Within a framework designed to preserve liberty is the best place to enact whatever political change it is that you want, unless your goal is not liberty. Those who advocate against America's foundation might feel entitled ‒ in the sense that they believe it is the job of government to provide for them ‒ have taken the freedoms that we have for granted or are delusional about how good others have it. I do not know how to solve the problem of restoring patriotism to those who have lost it. I am sympathetic to the frustrations young Americans have with the state of our politics, and I am hopeful that Gen Z will learn that they are better off trying to change this country, rather than destroy it. America is a wonderful place, and you would do best to fight for your political causes within her structure of liberty, rather than attempting to tear it down.
