Mediaboss Marketing

The Alaska State Capitol in Juneau. (James Brooks / ADN)

JUNEAU In five hours of public testimony late last month, a line of Alaskans criticized members of the Alaska Legislature for failing to come up with a reliable formula for Alaskas annual Permanent Fund dividend.

Legislators have heard similar testimony since 2017, but this years comments brought a new wrinkle: A growing number of Alaskans, dissatisfied with a lack of change, are calling for a constitutional convention to address the issue.

Voters are asked once every decade whether they want to call for a convention, and the next vote is in November 2022.

Because conventions arent limited to one subject, conservatives and libertarians are embracing the trend, saying it could allow them to pursue long-held goals like a ban on abortion, public funding for private schools, or changes to the way judges are picked.

Michael Chambers is a libertarian who is urging Alaskans to vote yes on the convention next year. He has a list of items hed like to see addressed and said the PFD issue is 100% helping the cause.

I dont mean this in a negative way, but for the low-information voter, it absolutely makes a difference, he said. The more the PFD festers out there and sits there, the more ... the low-information voters are the ones that say, Hey, wait a minute, this is enough!

Legislators say theyre not certain that a constitutional convention will bring conservative nirvana. Alaskas political divides could mean a convention split between conservatives and progressives, just as the Legislature is today.

What may start out looking like a solution on the PFD could turn into a social battleground like weve never seen in this state, said Senate President Peter Micciche, R-Soldotna.

I think there is a potential for unintended consequences beyond the scope of anything we can currently imagine, he said.

In a convention, uncertainty abounds

Alaska hasnt had a constitutional convention since its first, which took place in late 1955 and early 1956, but voters are asked every 10 years if they want to hold one.

In 1970, 1972, 1982, 1992, 2002 and 2012 they said no, mostly by wide margins. (The 1970 vote passed by about 500 votes but was overturned by the Alaska Supreme Court, which said the wording of the question was too leading. A re-vote in 1972 changed the result.)

Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage, said things could be different this time around.

I think theres a real chance that people could vote for a constitutional convention, he said, adding that any convention would be unpredictable.

If you go to a constitutional convention, you just dont know where it goes. You dont know whos going to be the delegates, you dont know how the decisions will be made. And you just dont know whats going to happen, he said.

Unless the Legislature passes a different guiding law, a convention would generally follow the rules in place in 1955.

Delegates to the Alaska Constitutional Convention at work, Fairbanks, winter 1955-56.

That means voters would likely be asked to vote for delegates during the 2024 election, and might be asked to approve a resulting draft in 2026.

Bob Bird, chairman of the Alaskan Independence Party, has been trying for years to convince Alaskans to vote for a convention, most recently in columns published by the Watchman, an Alaska-based Christian website.

He said hes been talking to groups he considers Ron Paul constitutionalist and said concerns about the Permanent Fund dividend unite them, but so does a desire to change the states judicial system.

The Alaska Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled in favor of abortion rights, and there has been a steady conservative push to change Alaskas judicial selection laws in order to overturn those rulings.

I cant tell you which is the most energizing in regards to the call for a con-con, he said, using shorthand for the constitutional convention.

Chambers said that while it might seem ironic, hes seeing libertarian interest in a PFD amendment.

We libertarians believe in less government, and the best way for you to have less government is if they dont have money. And the easiest way in Alaska for them not to have money is to give it directly to the people, he said.

Opponents and proponents see momentum

Bird said hes seeing growing interest in a convention, regardless of the issue.

I think its a small snowball thats picking up momentum, he said.

Those concerned about a convention are also seeing that momentum.

A group called the Permanent Fund Defenders has been urging lawmakers to guarantee Permanent Fund dividend payments in the state constitution. For at least two years, members have been warning legislators that unless they act, voters might seek a convention.

Juanita Cassellius, a spokesperson for the group, said the prospect of a convention is worrying because it could turn into a can of worms. Despite that prospect, many Alaskans might be willing to risk it in order to end perennial debates over the dividend.

There is a very vocal group that will get attention because its a simple message, she said. I think it would be very catchy. And now, the people in our group are very afraid of that.

Sen. David Wilson, R-Wasilla, represents one of the most conservative legislative districts in the state. He said that when the topic comes up in small groups, he reminds people that a convention of delegates is likely to resemble the mix of views present in the Alaska House of Representatives.

There, a coalition of independents, Democrats and moderate Republicans holds a narrow majority.

I think thats part of the issue: Theres a lot of unknowns, he said.

The Alaska Senate is taking the prospect of a convention seriously enough that some state senators have begun researching the potential costs and how a convention might operate.

Chambers and others said that if the Alaska Legislature fails to settle the dividend issue by the end of the 2022 regular legislative session, it will become a significant issue in next years races for governor and Legislature.

He speculated that the push will begin ramping up around February, because thats where campaigns start coming out and people start taking positions.

More here:
Supporters of a big PFD are starting to back a constitutional convention. Alaska's conservatives and libertarians see an opportunity. - Anchorage...

Ever since President Trump started nominating new Supreme Court justices, reproductive health activists and court observers have sounded the alarm that Roe v. Wade was in jeopardy. Conservative legislators also took notepassing laws that would contradict Roe in case it did fall.

On September 1, in the middle of the night, the five most conservative Supreme Court justices issued an unsigned order denying an injunction against a new Texas law that bans most abortions and deputizes the citizenry to enforce the ban.

There is no silver lining, but there may be a layer of defense that hasnt been fully explored by activists and reproductive justice organizers to explore: the new progressive prosecutor movement.

Prosecutors are granted a high level of discretion under US law, and they have the authority to simply not criminally charge people using laws they know to be unjust or unconstitutional. Progressive prosecutors have mostly focused on non-enforcement efforts on low-level drug charges. However, in 2019, four Atlanta-area prosecutors promised they would not use a new Georgia law criminalizing abortions to prosecute people for obtaining them, regardless of whether there was a legal challenge to that law.

Such promises are not legally binding. The consequences of going back on their word would essentially amount to some of their left-leaning constituency remembering the betrayal in the next election cycle. But this use of prosecutorial discretionto not charge abortion patients or providerscould play a prominent role in our post-Roe society.

A starting place is to establish where your county DA stands on abortion.

The inverse is also true. Enterprising right-wing prosecutors can turn to new interpretations of old laws to criminalize abortion, even without a specific statute. In the 1990s, former Pinellas County, Florida, State Attorney Bernie McCabe attempted to prosecute a young girl under homicide statutes for getting an abortion.

Prosecutorial discretion is also probably why conservative donors who oppose mass incarceration, such as Charles Koch, never got involved in bankrolling pro-reform candidates in prosecutor elections. A decarceral Republican candidate for district attorney is essentially a libertarian, and many libertarians adamantly support the right to abortion without governmental inference. But funding candidates who might not prosecute people for abortion would alienate GOP allies needed for other parts of conservative donors political agenda. Relatively few Republicans think abortion should be legal.

Traveling from an abortion-ban state to get a legal abortion in a different state is still legal, because Congress never passed a federal law criminalizing abortion. Some Texas residents will be able to procure safe and legal abortions elsewhere; others who dont have the resources will not.

Groups like the ACLU and Color of Change have already been educating the public on the importance of district attorney races and knowing what ones DA stands for as a strategic lever for racial justice. Reproductive justice organizations might now consider doing the same.

A starting place is to establish where a county DA stands on abortion. Rarely have top prosecutors been asked to weigh in on the issue, and whether they run as Democrats or Republicans is not enough to know whether they support or oppose criminalization. Reproductive justice advocates should seek this information from as many DA offices as possible.

If the DAs refuse to not prosecute abortion, or glibly state that the law is the lawnot just downplaying, but outright ignoring, their own power of discretionthat information should be advertised where it will be seen by constituents who might not otherwise be aware. And if any DAs promise outright that they will not prosecute abortion-related charges, that promise should be publicly platformed, too.

In 2020, multiple plaintiffs sued in Tennessee to block a new law that would force abortion providers to tell patients it may be possible to reverse a medication-induced abortion in the middle of the procedure, under the threat of felony charges, fines and incarceration. To guide his decision, US District Judge William Campbell invited the four DAs named in the suitMemphis DA Amy Weirich, Davidson County (Nashville) DA Glenn R. Funk, Knox County DA Charme P. Allen and recently retired 15th District DA Tom Thompsonto state on-record that they would not prosecute providers for giving the required recitation but then stating they disagreed with it.

All of them filed the requested declaration except Nashville DA Funk, who filed a declaration that he would not enforce the new law because of his legal opinion that it is unconstitutional.

An October 2020 open letter from Fair and Just Prosecution also collected the signatures of dozens of locally elected prosecutors across the US who promised to not prosecute anyone who obtain abortions and health care professionals who provide themeven if the protections of Roe v. Wade were to be eroded or overturned.

Photograph via Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 2.0

Originally posted here:
District Attorneys Could Be Key to the post-Roe v. Wade Abortion Battle - Filter

Joe Rogan isnt really a Democrat or a Republican. He did support Bernie Sanders in the 2020 nomination race. That endorsement, though, was met with outrage by Sanders supporters who considered Rogan to be racist and anti-LGBTQ.

The popular podcast host is more of a Libertarian that anything else. And that way of seeing things has become clear in how Rogan has responded to the COVID-19 pandemic. After being diagnosed with the disease, the host said he was taking multiple medications including Ivermectin, a horse de-wormer.

During his how today, Rogan ranted about the way his treatment was covered by the media. He was especially angry with Jim Acosta and CNN.

The podcaster began, Theyre making shit up! They keep saying Im taking horse dewormer. I literally got it from a doctor. Its an American company. They won the Nobel Prize in 2015 for use in human beings and CNN is saying Im taking horse dewormer. They must know thats a lie.

Rogan continued, CNN was saying I am a distributor of misinformation. I dont know whats going on, man. You know, there is a lot of speculation. One of the speculations involves the emergency use authorization for the vaccines. That, in order for there to be an emergency use authorization, there has to be no treatment for a disease.

The host closed his comments, The grand conspiracy is that the pharmaceutical companies are in cahoots to try and make anybody who takes this stuff look crazy. But whats crazy is look how better I got [sic]! I got better pretty quick, bitch.

In addition to taken Ivermectin, Rogan also took drugs that are proven to work against COVID-19 including monoclonal antibodies.

See the rest here:
WATCH: Enraged Ivermectin Taking Joe Rogan Threatens to Sue Jim Acosta, CNN - HillReporter.com

With campaigning for next years elections underway, the countys redistricting commission will soon start drawing maps proposing new County Council districts.

The commission met last week and expects to have final data compiled from the U.S. census by Monday, allowing members to begin drawing maps.

Nicholas Holdzkom, a research planner for the county, said he and colleagues are working to collect and import the data, so the process can begin next week.

By the meeting of [Sept. 23], our big hope is that people will be able to show up with maps, Holdzkom said.

Pamela Dunn, a senior legislative analyst for the County Council who is assisting the commission, said a map-drawing tool should be available to the public by Sept. 16.

The commission is tasked with drawing a map dividing the county into seven County Council districts. Last November, voters approved a charter amendment that increased the number of council members from nine to 11.

Seven members will represent districts, up from the current five. Four at-large members will continue to represent the entire county.

For the proposed districts, the commissioners will focus on:

Their draft maps will be finalized and available for public comment in October.

The commission will submit its report with one or more recommended maps, and present them to the County Council by Nov. 15. The council decides what the final map will be.

Commission members agreed that it would be beneficial to split into smaller groups of about four or five people, preferably of differing party affiliations, to start drawing maps. They then would reconvene to compare maps and eventually agree on a final map to present to the County Council, but also provide back-up maps, in case a full consensus cant be reached.

Commissioner Valerie Ervin, a former County Council member, told her colleagues last week that the commissions work is important, but reminded them they have limited time before the final Nov. 15 deadline.

The calendar is not our friend right now, Ervin said.

Ervin predicted that the County Council public hearing on the final proposal will be well attended, and that the community will be heard then.

It will be important to give council members one preferred map, but also provide alternatives, so the council has a choice, commissioners said.

Commissioner Sam Statland said he hopes the County Council follows the commissions recommendations in its final report. He added that it would be smart to do so, because the commission consists of Democrats, Republicans, a Libertarian and registered independents.

I think that gives us a lot of firm ground to stand on, in what our selections are, Statland said.

Steve Bohnel can be reached at steve.bohnel@bethesdamagazine.com

Read the original:
Montgomery County redistricting commission will soon begin map drawings - BethesdaMagazine.com

Dan Reale serves as chairman of the Libertarian Party of Connecticut, a statewide third party that seeks to elect candidates to local, state, and national office.

The Connecticut Examiner spoke with Reale about the identity of the Libertarian Party, and how he sees the partys prospects for this falls municipal elections.

This interview has been edited for clarity.

How do you see your role as chair of the Libertarian Party of Connecticut?

The main responsibility I have as chair of the party is obviously growing the party, which has been accomplished despite COVID.

As a matter of fact, if anything, the government response to COVID has helped us grow and actually start to raise serious money. The COVID response may have initially been well-intentioned, but it went well beyond 15 days to flatten the curve and started to amount to moving goalposts. It was represented as, if I wear a mask and get the vaccine, I will get my life back, and unfortunately 18 months in, its pretty clear that no, these things will not get your life back, and there are no plans to end the restrictions.

Why has frustration with COVID restrictions been a boon for Libertarians?

People just see the writing on the wall, and realize that theyd better elect somebody other than Democrats or Republicans or they will be in a world of trouble. A lot of people are switching to the Libertarian Party after having gone back and forth between the Republican Party and Democratic Party forever.

Weve easily seen a more than 10 percent increase in registrations, and a real increase in participation in events like rallies. Last year was the first year we had affiliates in all areas of Connecticut.

I can see why that would lead to frustration with Democrats enacting restrictions, but why wouldnt that just lead to people supporting Republicans, who are making the same arguments against restrictions?

Republicans arent going to stand up and fight for your rights, theyre never going to take action. Thats when you need a Libertarian, because Libertarians have always said that there are lines you dont cross, and this is one of those bright lines. Republicans have pretended to respect your rights, but when it comes down to it, theyre not actually taking any action. A lot of Republicans claim to be against this stuff, but why arent they actually doing anything? Were filing lawsuits and making Freedom of Information Act requests for complaints about mask mandates. The Republicans are just sitting around and saying oh, well, if we had more of us in Connecticut, maybe we could do something.

I like to call us Libertarians a second party, rather than a third party, because the Democrats and the Republicans are one party pretending to be two.

What are some of the municipal races youre focusing on this fall?

In Meriden, we have two candidates, and in Plainfield, we have three people running for Board of Education, including me. If all three of us get elected, we would have a very big policy say, because the remainder of the Board of Education would be Democrats and Republicans. At a local level, were focused on the same things Democrats and Republicans are, or should be, like making it so local governments actually live within their means.

What about for next years races for state legislature and the governorship?

Were going to do everything we can for next year. Were holding our nominating convention on January 23 for next years races, which is early, but we want to get a head start on petitioning, because ballot access is a huge problem.

For example, take Sterling. We dont have ballot access there, so if I go to Sterling and I want to run for First Selectman of Sterling, I cannot form a town committee because we have no ballot access, so the town committee cannot raise or spend over $1,000. Thats a major impediment.

Still, the growth in our state party does mean that I think next year is going to be great for us. If youre trying to build an institution, you need to retain institutional knowledge, which were finally starting to be able to do.

Next year, I plan on just stepping down so I can focus on being a candidate, because in the past, I have had that dual role as candidate and chair. Now, the party is big enough and things are in a place such that somebody else can handle it. If we got hit by a truck tomorrow, wed be good, and its taken a lot of work to get big enough to do that.

I know the Unmask Our Kids campaign has been a major priority for the Libertarian Party of Connecticut. Tell me about that effort, and why stopping mask requirements in schools is such a policy priority for you.

The government took a year of our kids education for no practical, sound reason at all. It ended up crippling our children psychologically and intellectually by completely removing a year of their childhood. Children are going without their friends, without student-teacher interaction and emotional development.

If you pull any superintendent aside and ask if distance learning worked, theyll admit, and everyone agrees, that no, none of this works. The people that have been pushing these ideas have gotten their way for the past 18 months, and the results have not been as theyve stated they would be. They want you to isolate forever, wear a mask forever, and impair learning outcomes for children forever.

Why would anyone want that?

They want federal and state money. School districts are far more concerned about getting federal and state money than they are about the actual well-being of children, and the towns are afraid of the Governor.

Were starting to see a lot of pushback at the school board level, and thats the opening where the Libertarian party is going to make its presence heard. The Libertarian Party doesnt believe in ideas that are so good that they need to be mandatory. We believe that anyone who wants to wear a mask can wear one, but the Governors policy is to let school districts force everyone to wear a mask, and then ask people for personal health records to show they are exempt from these orders.

The rest is here:
Dan Reale Talks Growth, 'Unmask Our Kids,' and the Libertarian Party of Connecticut - CT Examiner