Alaska court to hear arguments in dispute over appointments
Posted April 6, 2021 10:34 am.
Last Updated April 6, 2021 10:47 am.
This article is more than 5 years old.
JUNEAU, Alaska — The Alaska Supreme Court plans to hear arguments Tuesday over whether Gov. Mike Dunleavy improperly kept in place appointments to boards, commissions and his Cabinet after lawmakers failed to meet to consider the appointments.
Superior Court Judge Philip Pallenberg in February ruled that Dunleavy was prohibited by law from making recess appointments of the same people lawmakers had failed to confirm.
The ruling came in a case brought against the Republican Dunleavy in December by the Legislative Council, which is made up of House and Senate leaders. State attorneys, on Dunleavy’s behalf, appealed the ruling.
The council argued that appointments presented by Dunleavy in early 2020 lapsed in December when lawmakers failed to act on them, though they said Dunleavy was free to reappoint a person who was declined when a new legislative session began. The current session started on Jan. 19.
Attorneys for the state argued that some provisions of law dealing with appointments were unconstitutional.
Dunleavy’s pick for Department of Revenue commissioner, Lucinda Mahoney, was among the affected appointees.
“Nowhere in the Alaska Constitution does it mandate that the legislature take a vote on the governor’s appointees,” attorneys for the Legislature Megan Wallace, Hilary Martin and Marie Marx say in court filings submitted to the Supreme Court.
Attorneys for the state, Janell Hafner, Margaret Paton Walsh and William Milks, in a court filing, said that the Legislative Council’s position “permits the legislature to kneecap an administration without the accountability of a vote, frustrating the will of the electorate by impeding a governor’s ability to utilize the subordinates he or she needs to administer state affairs and oversee the delivery of essential services.”
Amid COVID-19 concerns last year, the Legislature passed a law allowing lawmakers to adjourn and take up confirmations later.
That law said if lawmakers didn’t act on the appointments either a month after an initial pandemic disaster declaration expired or by Jan. 18 — whichever was first — that amounted to them declining to confirm those people. The declaration ended on Nov. 15.
But Dunleavy, in a letter to legislative leaders on Dec. 16, said he viewed as valid appointees the Legislature had not acted to confirm. He said he would re-submit names of the people who had not been confirmed and submit any new picks for consideration during the session that is now underway.
Pallenberg, in a written judgment, said the appointments Dunleavy presented to the Legislature during the 2020 session were not valid from Dec. 16 “until the time at which those appointments were, if ever, presented” by Dunleavy to the Legislature for the current, ongoing session.
The judge said he expressed no opinion about the ability of a person to contest the action of someone whose appointment “was not valid” during that period.
He also issued an order last month granting attorneys’ fees of more than $26,000 to the Legislative Council.
The lawsuit was brought under prior council leadership, which changed with the new legislative cycle.
Becky Bohrer, The Associated Press
