Alaska

Alaska Supreme Court weighs whether correspondence education lawsuit wrongly targeted state • Alaska Beacon

Published

2 years ago

June 27, 2024

Alaska Supreme Court weighs whether correspondence education lawsuit wrongly targeted state • Alaska Beacon

Alaska Supreme Court justices on Thursday weighed whether a lawsuit seeking to have the large portions of the state’s correspondence school program found unconstitutional wrongly focused on the state government.

The justices heard arguments in the appeal of a Superior Court ruling that found a correspondence school program law to be unconstitutional.

A central question from the justices during oral arguments was whether plaintiffs should be suing the state’s education department or individual districts.

The case whose decision is under appeal is State of Alaska, Department of Education and Early Development v. Alexander, in which plaintiffs argued that it is unconstitutional for public education money to be spent on private school tuition. Superior Court Judge Adolf Zeman found the spending unconstitutional and struck down the parts of statute that allow homeschool allotment money; he suggested lawmakers could rewrite the law to make it constitutional.

The state constitution does not allow the use of public funds for the benefit of private or religious schools.

Attorneys for the state of Alaska, a group of parents whose children attend private school using allotment money and another set of parents who argue that spending is unconstitutional all made oral arguments. Justices interrupted all three of the attorneys’ arguments with pointed questions about how the case should be decided.

Attorneys for the state appealed Zeman’s ruling and said the case should not hold the state’s education department to account because individual school districts are the only oversight body for homeschool spending.

In May, Gov. Mike Dunleavy and Deputy Attorney General Cori Mills argued the lower court’s ruling should be thrown out because it is too broad, but Elbert Lin, a Virginia lawyer hired by the state, argued that since the Alaska statute that governs homeschool allotment spending has many constitutional applications, such as spending for school supplies as retailers like Target, it should not be thrown out — even if there is also the opportunity for the statute to be applied unconstitutionally.

“It is irrelevant whether the provision might be applied unconstitutionally in the view of the plaintiffs or even this court,” he said. Lin argued that if there is an unconstitutional use of the funds, the plaintiffs should sue individual districts, not the state. That way the courts can enforce any unconstitutional spending with a “scalpel rather than a sledgehammer.”

The state’s education department was once responsible for monitoring homeschool allotment spending, but a 2014 law proposed by Dunleavy, then a state senator, put that responsibility on districts instead.

Justice Dario Borghesan probed Lin’s argument and asked if state law allows allotments to be spent on full-time private school tuition. He said “both text and legislative history” suggest that full-time enrollment in private school is not correspondence study, which requires a certified teacher to come up with a learning plan for the student. “That seems somewhat nullified, or maybe a rubber stamp, if the child is just attending private school full time,” he said.

Anchorage parents who use homeschool allotments to pay for private school educations joined the case as intervenors, as people who could be affected by its outcome. Their attorney, Kirby Thomas West, took a different tack than the attorney for the state, and argued that the court should make a decision to reverse the lower court’s ruling. She argued that it would violate the United States Constitution to tell parents how they can spend their money.

Borghesan pushed back on that assessment because allotments are public school money. He cited previous case law: “While parents may have a fundamental right to decide whether to send their child to public school, they do not have a fundamental right, generally, to direct how a public school teaches their child,” he read. Essentially, he said, states have authority over how public education money is spent, so the state can stipulate that it may not be spent on a private education.

West sought to make her point through a different comparison: “It would be absurd and patently unconstitutional to suggest that the state must police the use of Permanent Fund dividends to ensure that no Alaskan ever uses that money to defray the cost of their child’s tuition at a private school,” she said. “It’s just as unconstitutional to do so here.”

She asked the justices to place a stay, which is a pause on the implementation of a ruling, on the lower court’s decision if they sent the case back to the lower court for reconsideration. The stay would mean her clients could continue to spend public education money on private school tuition.

After the arguments, Chief Deputy Attorney General Margaret Paton-Walsh said she thought the case went well for the defense. “It’s always hard to read the tea leaves, but I think some of the justices certainly seem to be pretty skeptical of that superior court decision,” she said.

She pointed out that it is not typical for the intervenors to make a distinct argument from the defense: “So I think that creates an extra wrinkle for the justices to try to noodle through as they think about the case,” she said.

The plaintiffs’ attorney, Scott Kendall, asked the court to uphold Zeman’s ruling. He argued that the judge was right to strike down homeschool allotments because the intent of the statute is to allow unconstitutional spending.

He pointed to legislative history in his appeal: when Dunleavy proposed the allotment law, he also sought a change to the state constitution to allow public funds to be spent at private schools. Dunleavy also proposed enacting school vouchers, which like the amendment, did not pass.

Kendall said that for that reason the plaintiffs should not have to sue individual school districts, because the statute is meant to allow unconstitutional spending: “When a statute grants a plainly unconstitutional power, as it does in this case — and in fact, the legislative history meticulously explains that that was the very sole reason why this legislation was passed — then it’s clearly unconstitutional on its face,” he said.

Borghesan pushed back on this argument. He repeatedly asked Kendall why the whole statute should be thrown out, rather than targeting unconstitutional uses by suing districts. “Why does that bad purpose, you know, defeat the whole rest of the statute? I mean, we have separation of powers. We’re respectful of the Legislature’s actions,” he said. “We kind of have a duty to uphold constitutional applications of statutes.”

Kendall conceded there may be a way to keep the statute without allowing public education dollars to pay for private school tuition: “There is a possibility this court, with ingenuity, could do a limiting construction — could sever parts of this — and that would be an outcome we would support,” he said.

He then referred to an early court case, in which the Supreme Court invalidated state scholarships for Sheldon Jackson College, a Sitka institution that later closed.

“Because the real core concern here, again, is the core concern when you go back to the Sheldon Jackson case, which is, are we using public funds to subsidize a private educational purpose?” Kendall said. “Here it is clear. It’s clear from the purpose of the statute, it’s clear from the interveners’ very presence here, it’s clear this is happening, and it’s clear this was the purpose of the statute.”

Deena Bishop, the commissioner of Alaska’s Department of Education and Early Development, was in the courtroom. She said after the hearing that, in her view, districts are doing a good job of ensuring state money is spent constitutionally. She did not directly say whether the state education department is in a position to regulate spending. Foremost, she said, her interest is correspondence students: “My purpose and goals are to have a great education every day for young people, and there are nearly 23,000 — it’s 22,900 students — that we want to ensure that their education continues without disruption.”

Chief Justice Peter Maassen said the court would consider the appeal and issue “something” but did not give a time frame for a decision: “No timelines are guaranteed, but we understand the urgency of the matter,” he said. Without a new court ruling, Zeman’s ruling would go into effect on Monday.

Editor-in-Chief Andrew Kitchenman contributed reporting to this story.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Source link

Click to comment

Alaska

State of Alaska Secures Win in Fight for Transparency Around Oil Development

Published

20 hours ago

May 29, 2026

Press Room

State of Alaska Secures Win in Fight for Transparency Around Oil Development

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Image-SOM

(Bethel, AK) –Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a favorable opinion for the State of Alaska in ConocoPhillips Alaska v. Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC), agreeing that State laws requiring disclosure of oil well data are not preempted by federal law.

“Alaska relies heavily on our resources and resource development,” said Acting Alaska Attorney General Cori Mills. “We are also stewards of those resources for the citizens of Alaska. Alaska’s law both allows resource development now, and encourages further development and exploration in the future. We’re pleased that the Ninth Circuit recognized that federal law has not overridden Alaska’s balanced approach.”

The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission regulates oil and gas operations throughout Alaska, including within the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska (NPR–A). Under Alaska law, companies need permits from the AOGCC to drill and must submit well data. The AOGCC is required to keep well data confidential for 24 months.

ConocoPhillips drilled several wells on lease holdings within the NPR–A and submitted data to the AOGCC. When the 24-month period expired, the AOGCC notified ConocoPhillips of the upcoming well data disclosure. ConocoPhillips sued in federal court to stop the disclosure process claiming that the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act, the federal law allowing private exploration in the NPR–A, preempted Alaska’s 24-month disclosure law. The federal district court found Alaska law preempted, and the AOGCC sought appellate review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the AOGCC. The federal Production Act does not preempt state law. The Ninth Circuit therefore reversed the district court’s holding to the contrary.

“The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is pleased with the court’s decision upholding Alaska law,” said AOGCC Commissioner Jessie Chmielowski in a declaration filed in the litigation court. “Alaska’s balanced approach to well data confidentiality leads to increased exploration activity, not less. Alaska law allows for a two-year confidentiality period on exploration well data to leverage a company’s investment in drilling. Thereafter, making the data public has incentivized exploration on the North Slope. Placing well data in the public record allows competing companies to evaluate different exploration concepts or interpretations based on seismic data that, without well data, are just educated guesses.”

# # #

Source link

Alaska

Opinion: A governor’s race for Alaska’s next generation

Published

1 day ago

May 28, 2026

Press Room

Opinion: A governor’s race for Alaska’s next generation

Alaska Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins (Photo courtesy Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins)

Alaska needs change. That’s why I’m running for governor: to bring new energy and a new generation of leadership to the governor’s office.

For 13 years in a row, more Alaskans have left our great state than have moved here. Prices are rising, schools are closing and Alaskans are getting left behind.

This year, those planning to leave Alaska include Ben and Catherine Walker, both recipients of Alaska’s Teacher of the Year Award. They can’t justify staying in the place they grew up in and love because of our failure to invest in the fundamentals, such as our schools.

The problem is personal. I’m 37. Many of those leaving Alaska are my age — debating whether there’s a future for us here or not. It’s a challenge we must solve.

I love challenges.

Back in 2012, I dropped out of college to challenge an entrenched Republican incumbent legislator who was running unopposed to represent my home region of Southeast Alaska. I launched a scrappy, grassroots campaign and focused on the kitchen table issues that matter to every Alaskan: good schools, getting our fair share of oil revenues, lowering costs, protecting our fisheries. I won — by 32 votes.

When I was sworn in, I was baby-faced and bushy-tailed, just 23 years old. It was the beginning of a decade-long tenure in the Legislature. A lot happened in those 10 years.

Among the most important: We formed the House Bipartisan Coalition in 2016. While I have a “D” next to my name, I believe strongly in working across party lines. That’s what the Bipartisan Coalition was, and is, all about: Democrats, moderate Republicans and independents, all working together to do what’s best for Alaska.

I want to bring that same bipartisan, vigorous problem-solving spirit to the governor’s office, where it has been nonexistent the last eight years.

As governor, I want to work hand in hand with the Legislature to deliver some desperately needed wins for Alaska that will make our lives better and get our state back on track:

• Reinvest in our public schools. Our school districts are in battlefield triage mode, but instead of amputating limbs, our school boards are forced to choose which sports to cut, which electives to discontinue and which neighborhood school to close. Enough already. Get school funding back up to par.

• Forward fund our schools. Our school districts shouldn’t have to guess how much education funding will end up being appropriated in end-of-session legislative haggling.

This circus forces school districts to prospectively fire teachers, then rehire them a month or two later, when they find out the final education funding number. It’s awful for all involved. We should fix it by forward funding.

• Close the Hilcorp corporate income tax loophole. Hilcorp should pay their fair share in taxes just as ConocoPhillips, and nearly every other major corporation in Alaska, already does.

• Lower the cost of energy. Chugach Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric Association, Homer Electric Association and Matanuska Electric Association operate about 1,700 megawatts in power generation capacity. Peak Railbelt winter demand is half that: about 850 megawatts. Guess who pays for the nearly gigawatt in underused and unused power plants? You, on your power bill. The governor should force the co-ops to work together, reduce redundancies and diversify energy sources, including renewables, in order to reduce the sky-high cost of energy for Alaskans.

• Lower the cost of childcare. Alaska has inadvertently created a system of childcare permitting and licensing that effectively amounts to death by a thousand pieces of paperwork. It’s creating scarcity and cost. We need to fix it.

• Lower the cost of housing. Cut red tape to make it easier and cheaper to build more homes of all kinds — from tiny homes and ADUs to manufactured and modular housing, to apartments and condos, to traditional single-family homes. More housing of all kinds, faster.

• Rein in bottom-trawl bycatch. I will nominate Alaskans to the North Pacific Fishery Management Council who will make sure that Alaska and Alaskans — not Seattle and Lower 48 industry interests — foremost benefit from our fisheries.

• Responsibly develop our resources. Support projects that have regional buy-in and support, such as Pikka on the North Slope, which just produced first oil this month, while saying “no” when the risks are too great and those in the region are opposed, as is the case with Pebble.

• Grow our tourism economy. And let’s crack the code on winter tourism while we’re at it. If Iceland can do it, we darn well can, too. Fairbanks is having burgeoning winter tourism success. Let’s follow their great lead.

• Make Alaska an awesome place to live. Let’s build dozens more public-use cabins. Let’s build an alpine hut-to-hut system like they have in New Zealand and the Alps. Let’s build the Alaska Long Trail. Let’s make Anchorage a world-class winter city.

Does this sound like the kind of Alaska you want to live in? Then I have great news: We are the governor campaign for you. And if what you just read gives you indigestion, you’ll be relieved to know you have 17 other options.

I have more great news: I can win.

After beating an entrenched Republican incumbent, I spent a decade representing a swingy district that voted for Donald Trump.

In those 10 years, I recorded some of the highest margins of crossover support from Trump voters of any Democrat in Alaska. I ran 12% ahead of Hillary Clinton in 2016 and 15% ahead of Joe Biden in 2020.

Here’s the simple truth: Whoever becomes our next governor will need to win with the support of significant numbers of independents and moderate Republicans, in addition to Democrats. I’ve done that. And I’ll do it again. Will you join me?

Former state Rep. Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins of Sitka is a candidate for governor of Alaska.

• • •

The Anchorage Daily News welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.

Source link