As previously reported, last year the Alaska Libertarian Party came in second for Governor of Alaska among the party nominees for that office. That is because the Democrats didn’t have a gubernatorial nominee. Therefore, under Alaska law, the Libertarian Party had the right to choose a nominee for the Commission that regulates campaign finance.
According to this story, the legislators who must approve the appointment aren’t sure they want to appoint Bill McCord, the Libertarian Party’s choice. The story is fairly comprehensive, and says one objection to McCord is that he hasn’t lived in Alaska very long. The story does not say if the position actually has a duration of residency requirement, but probably there is no such requirement. The story also does not say that McCord has been very interested in election law for over twenty-five years. Back in 1991, McCord was a constituent of Congressman Al Swift, who was chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives committee that handled election law bills. McCord helped persuade Swift to hold a hearing on a bill that would have helped minor parties and independent candidates.
The body’s name is the Public Offices Commission.
There is nothing in the statute about any qualification to be a member of the commission. In the Alaska Constitution, there is a requirement that board and commission members be US Citizens (there is not a Alaska residency requirement). But in statute there is a requirement that an appointee be a registered voter as of the previous general election. I assume that McCord was registered to vote in Alaska in November.
There is no standard which the legislature must apply when confirming a member of a commission member. Alaska is unusual in that confirmations are made by the legislature in joint session, rather than by the senate. But the legislature in Alaska is quite small, only 60 members. If they decline to confirm, the governor may not submit the same nominee.
The statute is a bit confusing on the party affiliation of the commission members. It says that there should be two members from each of the top two parties at the previous gubernatorial election. But it also says that members of the same party may not be appointed to terms ending in consecutive years, and that terms of the five members are staggered such that one five-year tern ends each year.
It appears that Walker originally interpreted the statute to mean that the the Democratic members were no longer qualified to serve. But they were appointed to five-year terms.
It happens that a Democratic member’s term expired this year, so a Libertarian had to be appointed.
The article quotes the chairman of the Libertarian as saying that McCord was his 5th choice. But the statute provides for the party to submit 4 names. But a December blog entry lists the 4 persons that were submitted, and it included McCord.
http://amandacoyne.com/politics/unintended-consequences-libertarian-will-be-joining-the-apoc-commission/
So I suspect the party chair just misremembered, or perhaps he though so little of McCord, that he was the 5th of four choices.
Alternatively, five names were submitted in anticipation of four being available after the first was nominated by the governor. But if that were the case and McCord was indeed 5th of 5, then he wasn’t eligible for selection by the governor.
Sounds like they’re not happy with the fact that he doesn’t support the two-party status-quo.
That’s what the real reason is, Cody. Walker only ran Independent because he felt this the best way to win. He is a Republican at heart, and it would not surprise me if he runs for a 2nd term, he may do so as a Republican. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me that his Democrat running mate and he may start squabbling before their 1st term has ended. We could see a ticket in 2018 of Walker running against his former lt.governor. These guys are not to be trusted, but matter what they say. They are in this for the power, and they don’t care what they might have said initially. POWER,POWER,POWER, is all that it is about.