Gov. Mike Dunleavy and Attorney General Kevin Clarkson know that their best chance for the governor to beat the recall campaign is to delay a Supreme Court decision until June, which would probably place the recall question on the general election ballot in November.

Presidential contests always come with a larger turnout of voters who don’t follow state elections and issues closely, which would certainly help Dunleavy. Special elections called for one purpose—even one as important at this—attract a much smaller slice of the electorate.

Getting the issue on the general election ballot would “provide the constitutional right to a recall vote for the highest number of Alaskans,” the state claims. That statement is not true. The recall election, no matter when it takes place, would be open to all voters.

The political strategy that the state dressed up in legalese Friday before the Alaska Supreme Court is a smart tactic, though the real motivation is never mentioned. It remains to be seen what the court will do about scheduling.

There are hefty helpings of puffery and arrogance in the state argument for delay, based on the assumption that voters are too dumb, lazy and irresponsible to inform themselves about the issues.

The state said that the 200-word statement in favor of recall and a 200-word statement from Dunleavy opposing recall “may be the only information that voters receive for their decision on how to vote.” State law limits the official statements to 200 words.

I think that Dunleavy and Clarkson should be required to estimate how many Alaska voters they believe are that incompetent. Perhaps there are 2,000, one for every one of the imaginary ghost jobs in state government that candidate Dunleavy invented.

The collection of more than 71,000 signatures, which will be required if this is to go to a vote, is delayed pending court action. The state and the Dunleavy support group, Stand Tall With Mike, are trying to run out the clock, hoping that people will lose interest in the recall.

In a filing Friday, the state claimed there is no need for what it called an “extremely expedited schedule” to decide this relatively simple case in the next few weeks.

“There is no emergency presented here,” the state said, adding that a decision five months from now would still be a “somewhat expedited schedule.”

“This more reasonable expedited schedule will allow the parties to provide thoughtful briefing, will give the court time for a considered decision, and would still allow the committee, assuming it can gather the necessary signatures, to have its recall grounds appear on the ballot in one of the already scheduled statewide elections this year,” the Dunleavy administration said.

This is not about creating time for a “thoughtful briefing.” It is about creating time to keep Dunleavy in office, but the attorney general’s office would never say that because it’s too close to the truth.

The state said a briefing schedule comparable to what is used for “child protection appeals” would be ideal, with a decision in early June.

If the recall campaign collects the signatures by Aug. 5, that would place the question on the November ballot. If it takes a month or so longer, a winter special election would be required.

If the recall committee submitted its signatures between April 20 and May 20, the recall question would be on the primary election ballot in August, which is also a schedule that Dunleavy would like.

If it submits them before April 20 or between May 21 and July 5, a special election would be needed.

One of the state’s arguments for prohibiting signature gathering for as long as possible is that the Supreme Court may invalidate one or more of the reasons given for the recall on the petition.

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.