The administration of Gov. Mike Dunleavy and plaintiffs in a court case whose outcome struck down key components of Alaska’s homeschool programs have different ideas for how to get families who use those programs through the next year.

Earlier this month, Anchorage Superior Court Judge Adolf Zeman ruled that the law allowing the state to distribute payments to the parents of homeschooled students is unconstitutional. That left families who use the program to navigate uncertain terrain as they finish out this academic year and plan for the next.

For that reason, attorneys on both sides of the case have requested that the courts put the ruling on hold. Such holds are called stays. But where the state has filed for an indefinite stay on the court’s ruling, the plaintiffs ask the court to limit a stay to two months. The Anchorage School District, the state’s largest, filed a friend of the court brief supporting the plaintiffs; three people whose families use the programs filed a response in support of the state.

The state’s request would retain the aspects of Alaska law Zeman found unconstitutional until a higher court weighs in on his decision.

Plaintiffs were willing to compromise, said their attorney, Scott Kendall. They offered to expedite the state’s appeal and help get legislation passed to fix the unconstitutional language in state law. They also offered to agree to the longer stay the state requested if it passed emergency regulations that keep the correspondence program running, but restrict spending on private school education. That is, Alaska families would not be able to offset private school costs with state funds, but could still purchase curriculum and textbooks with state money. Kendall drafted an example of such regulations.

The state declined the plaintiffs’ offer through its attorney.

“At this point, the state plans to see how the stay proceedings play out in the courts, before deciding how best to address any problems that may remain once the trial court and the Supreme Court have weighed in on the stay,” wrote Margaret Paton-Walsh, the chief of the special litigation section within the Alaska Department of Law.

The state’s request for a stay emphasizes the harm correspondence families will experience without one and that the judge’s ruling means correspondence programs would not be able to operate at all.

“For decades, the State has offered correspondence schools as one of the options for Alaskan students in furtherance of its constitutional duty to provide for education,” Paton-Walsh wrote in the stay request. “Wrongfully removing that educational option—even temporarily—irreparably harms both the State’s education system and the children within it.”

Kendall said the state’s argument is disingenuous and that it is clear the ruling does not end the entire correspondence program.

“The only part that they are holding up on is the part that is so clearly unconstitutional,” he said. “I believe they’re trying to manufacture a crisis around the correspondence schools in order to get what they really want, which is to tear out part of our Constitution: the direct benefit clause, which prohibits spending public funds at private schools.”

Kendall said the administration refused a compromise that would maintain the correspondence programs while meeting the constitution’s requirements.

“If that’s where they’re at, then they’re not arguing with me,” Kendall said. “They’re arguing with the founders who wrote Alaska’s constitution, and that’s not a winning legal argument.”

To change the constitution would take approval from two-thirds of both legislative bodies and a public vote in favor.

The state asked for a decision by May 2, but the judge’s decision could come at any time.

JUNEAU — Senate budget crafters have adopted a spending plan that includes dividend payments of nearly $1,600 for eligible Alaskans.

The Senate Finance Committee this week reduced the dividend payments approved by the House earlier this year, which would have given every eligible Alaskan nearly $2,300 and would have required a significant draw from already-depleted state savings.

The final dividend figure is set to be at the center of end-of-session negotiations. But other than the differences in cash payments to Alaskans, the two chambers are largely in agreement on the funding items in the operating budget, which covers the cost of running state agencies and services for the fiscal year that begins in July.

The House and Senate appear poised to hold the line on agency spending and include $175 million in one-time, outside-the-formula funding for public education to help make up for years without inflation-proofing and Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s veto of a permanent increase to the school funding formula.

Differences between the House and Senate spending plans — including the size of the Permanent Fund dividend — will be worked out by a small group of lawmakers from both chambers in the final two weeks of the session, which must end by mid-May.

By reducing the size of the dividend, Senate Finance Committee members said they hoped to avoid a draw from the state’s main savings account, called the Constitutional Budget Reserve, which requires the approval of three-quarters of House and Senate members.

Legislative Budget Director Alexei Painter said Thursday that the Senate’s spending plan would lead to a deficit of almost $7 million in the coming fiscal year — far less than the projected deficit included in the House version of the spending plan. Senate Finance Co-Chair Sen. Bert Stedman, a Sitka Republican, said he expected that by the time the spending plan was approved by both the House and Senate, the deficit would be eliminated altogether, producing a budget that balances expected revenues and spending.

According to an agreement between the Senate and House made earlier this year, the full Senate has until May 2 to pass its version of the operating budget. Once the Senate approves the budget bill, it will be sent to the House for an up-or-down vote. Unless a majority of House members agree to changes made to the bill by the Senate, it will be sent to a conference committee to work out the differences.

The biggest task for the conference committee will be to find common ground on the size of the dividend. Senate members said Friday that the number would likely be closer to the $1,600 figure they had proposed, because the House plan would have created a nearly $270 million gap in state finances — with few options to cover the deficit.

Those options could include either cutting the size of the capital budget, which is used to cover the cost of infrastructure projects and facility maintenance, or drawing from savings.

The Constitutional Budget Reserve had around $2.5 billion at the beginning of the current fiscal year, below the minimum $3.5 billion that Painter said is recommended to buffer the volatility in the price of oil, which still accounts for a large portion of state revenues.

Stedman said the Legislature should look to build the account — rather than drawing from it — by “at least half of a billion” to prepare for fluctuating oil prices.

“Reading the tea leaves, I don’t think that there is a will in either body, really, to do a draw from the (Constitutional Budget Reserve) account to access the additional funds,” Sen. David Wilson, a Wasilla Republican who serves on the Senate Finance Committee, said Friday. “No matter how much I wish I could give my constituents a larger PFD, I just don’t think the will in both bodies is going to be there.”

Wilson said the sticking points in the final weeks of the legislative session will likely come not in the operating budget, but from key pieces of legislation where the Republican-controlled House majority and the bipartisan majority in the Senate have not found common ground.

“I think that’s going to be more contentious than the operating budget this year,” said Wilson, listing energy, education, criminal law reform and election policy as the areas of disagreement.

“So there are still four big items where the House and Senate have not come to a fully agreeable compromise yet. I think that’s going to be more of a struggle to get consensus, over the budget,” Wilson said.

That would be a departure from past years, when the House and Senate have diverged in their visions for the operating budget, leading to dramatic budget showdowns in the final days of the session. The state budget is seen as the most important piece of legislation passed every session — and the only one constitutionally required to be adopted each year.

The Senate’s dividend amount was calculated by appropriating one-quarter of Permanent Fund earnings toward the dividend — at around $1,350 per eligible Alaskan — leaving three-quarters of the annual draw from the Permanent Fund to pay for state government. The Senate’s dividend was boosted by just over $200 per recipient in energy relief payments, which were calculated using excess oil revenue from the current fiscal year.

The House’s larger dividend plan was cobbled together using Permanent Fund earnings, energy relief funds and surplus earnings that would otherwise be deposited in the Constitutional Budget Reserve.

The Senate again added a so-called “waterfall” provision to the budget this year — similar to the one approved last year — meaning that if oil revenue in the coming fiscal year is higher than currently expected, some of the additional funds could be redirected to next year’s dividend payouts in the form of energy relief checks.

Unlike the dividend, which is taxed by the federal government, energy rebates are tax-exempt.

While the budget plans are largely similar, small differences remain between the funding priorities of the House and Senate.

The House included $20 million for the University of Alaska Fairbanks to achieve R1 status, the top classification for U.S. research universities. That funding was left out of the Senate’s version of the budget.

The Senate included $12 million in education funding to account for what federal officials have said the state owes certain districts in coronavirus relief dollars. The Dunleavy administration has disputed the federal government’s assertions, and the funding was not included in the budget by the House.

The Senate eliminated funding altogether for the Alaska Gasline Development Corp., which has received millions of state dollars to explore the development of a natural gas pipeline, with limited results. The House had reduced funding for the corporation but not eliminated it entirely.

Every difference between the House and Senate versions of the budget could become a piece of the final session negotiations, as lawmakers look to return to their home districts — and in some cases to awaiting re-election campaigns — in which legislative accomplishments could prove vital.

“I think the real knowledge here is that there’s not a lot you can do with this budget,” said Sen. Scott Kawasaki, a Fairbanks Democrat, explaining lawmakers’ pivot to focus on legislation that does not come with a price tag. “There’s not that many levers that you can move up or down. There’s not that much money that you can just transfer into savings. And there’s not that much money that you can transfer to increase the Permanent Fund dividend at this point.”

In 2017, the Federal Aviation Administration revoked James M. Fejes Jr.’s pilot’s license, after he had been flying cannabis products to shops around Alaska with Flying High Investments, his company that was dissolved in 2020.

Fejes challenged the revocation in federal district court, saying the federal government does not regulate commerce within the state of Alaska. He was not crossing state lines with his bundles of weed, so interstate commerce laws didn’t apply. His arguments failed the Ninth Circuit.

“Although many states have legalized recreational marijuana, it continues to be a controlled substance federally,” Judge Ryan D. Nelson wrote in the ruling.

Fejes, who held a pilot certificate issued by the FAA, came under scrutiny after Alaska’s Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office (AMCO) reported him for violating regulations pertaining to the transportation of marijuana. Despite marijuana being legalized for most uses under Alaska state law, Fejes’s activities were deemed illegal under federal statutes.

The FAA invoked § 44710(b)(2), a provision that mandates the revocation of a pilot certificate when the individual knowingly engages in an activity related to controlled substances punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. Fejes’s use of aircraft for the distribution of marijuana fell squarely within this provision, leading to the revocation of his pilot certificate.

Fejes contested the revocation, arguing that the FAA lacked jurisdiction to regulate purely intrastate commerce such as marijuana delivery within Alaska. However, the panel rejected this argument, citing the constitutional authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, including the use of airspace.

Furthermore, Fejes attempted to invoke an exemption under FAA regulation 14 C.F.R. § 91.19, which allows for the transportation of controlled substances authorized by federal or state statutes. However, the FAA maintained that this exemption did not apply to Fejes’s case, as it relied on a different provision in law.

Finally, Fejes challenged the interpretation of § 44710(b)(2) by the FAA, arguing that his conduct did not align with enforcement priorities outlined in a memorandum on marijuana-related prosecutions. However, the panel dismissed this argument, emphasizing that a criminal conviction is not a prerequisite for the revocation of a pilot certificate under the statute.

The ruling fortifies the FAA’s authority to regulate aviation activities, even in the context of state laws that conflict with federal statutes.

While the U.S. Department of Justice has directed prosecutors to use discretion in spending resources to pursue marijuana crimes in states where pot is legal, the court opinion noted: That “does not alter marijuana’s status — it remains illegal under federal law.”

The ruling is at this link: