Dunleavy attorneys claim 'irreparable harm' if recall proponents allowed to seek signatures

Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s support group, Stand Tall With Mike, claims it will suffer “irreparable harm” if recall proponents are allowed to collect signatures from Alaskans, pending an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The recall proponents won’t be harmed by a delay, Stand Tall claims, because it will be easier for them to get signatures in the spring.

I suspect that the recall proponents will accept whatever weather February brings.

The claims by STWM are included in a request filed in Anchorage Superior Court Wednesday seeking to delay an order requiring petition booklets to be distributed by Feb. 10.

“STWM members will suffer three species of irreparable harm if the court’s order is not stayed pending appeal,” lawyers Craig Richards and Brewster H. Jamieson wrote.

The first species, according to Stand Tall, is that STWM’s “members must spend their time and money communicating with voters about the recall petition's deficiencies.”

As to the alleged membership of STWM, let’s see a list of members. Dunleavy’s rich brother in Texas, Francis, who bankrolled much of the 2018 shadow campaign, is most likely in the upper echelon and he’s not an Alaskan. There are probably others from Outside.

Then there is the math problem that perplexes STWM. There are four specific allegations against Dunleavy, but Richards and Jamieson count 12 because of the use of “and/or.”

“While four of RDC's (Recall Dunleavy Committee) ‘bullet points’ remain, the ‘and/or’ clause was maintained, meaning the governor is forced to defend himself against 12 individual charges in 200 words or less, plus mount an expensive statewide campaign barely a year after taking office,” the attorneys claim.

They appear to believe in the recall multiplier effect, thinking that incompetence, neglect of duty and being unfit for office create separate claims for a single act. This is more specious than species.

They said the second species of irreparable harm is that the governor will be distracted from this duties by the recall.

“STWM's members campaigned for the governor's election because they believed in his platform. If the governor faces a recall campaign, he will be less able to focus on fulfilling his campaign promises while defending against this recall effort,” the attorneys claim.

The worst thing of all, according to the Dunleavy defenders, is that the alleged members of STWM will be in a fix if Alaska voters actually recall the governor, while STWM is still in court trying to prevent an election.

“STWM's members will not be able to recover the lost chance to put the state on a firmer fiscal footing. This is all the more true if the recall election is called and the governor removed from office before the supreme court can rule,” they claim. “Alaska law favors ‘electoral repose,’ and a completed recall election could moot STWM’s important constitutional and statutory arguments.”

STWM is not showing a great deal of confidence or respect for Alaska voters.

The third species, according to Richards and Jamieson, is that the recall process will be damaged and future governors may not behave the way Dunleavy has if this goes forward. Some people won’t see that as irreparable harm.

“If an election is held, future governors and other state officials may hesitate to use the power of their offices to rein in spending or take other necessary actions, and voters will regard general elections as contingent decisions subject to the continuous threat of recall whenever the political winds change,” they said.

“In seeking to avoid this irreparable harm, STWM's members also vindicate the interests of Alaskan voters in an orderly recall process,” they said.

They predict mass confusion if the Supreme Court finds one allegation improper or changes an “and/or,” claiming signatures would have to be gathered all over again. And in a show of concern for the recall proponents, they say a delay would be good all around.

“Surely, signature-gathering is easier in April or May than in February,” they said.

The final sentence in the document appears to be a case of initial confusion, which is fitting.

Dunleavy’s group meant to say STWM will win, but somehow ended up concluding that the RDC (Recall Dunleavy Committee) “is likely to prevail.” I think they are right about that.

Later, after someone read the Stand Tall document, the support group filed this “errata,” revising the prediction to say that STWM is likely to prevail. We’ll see.

Your contributions help support independent analysis and political commentary by Alaska reporter and author Dermot Cole. Thank you for reading and for your support. Either click here to use PayPal or send checks to: Dermot Cole, Box 10673, Fairbanks, AK 99710-0673.