The Alaska State Capitol. (Juneau Empire File)

The Alaska State Capitol. (Juneau Empire File)

Opinion: Court battle or not, there is no reason education should not be funded this year

It’s on the Legislature to act, not the governor.

  • By KEVIN CLARKSON
  • Friday, May 24, 2019 11:23am
  • Opinion

There is a legal battle brewing over education funding. But, it is not a battle over whether education should be funded — both the Legislature and Gov. Mike Dunleavy agree that it should. It is not even over the amount; the governor has introduced a bill to fully fund education and stated he will not veto the funding.

This is a battle over whether the annual budgeting process envisioned by our founders and set forth in the Alaska Constitution requires the Legislature and the governor every year to consider how to spend the revenues available to them and prohibits setting aside future revenues in a future fiscal year. As it stands now, it is the Department of Law’s view that the Legislature has not yet allocated money for the state to fund education in the forthcoming year.

[Opinion: Sen. Murkowski leads bipartisan bill in support of rural, LGBTQ elders]

How did this start? In 2018, the 30th Legislature future appropriated money for education for fiscal year 2020, thereby earmarking money that the state would only receive after fiscal year 2019. What’s wrong with that? It violates the Alaska Constitution.

The Alaska Supreme Court has ruled that the Alaska Constitution mandates an annual budgeting process —“the constitutional framers believed that the legislature would be required to decide funding priorities annually on the merits of the various proposals presented.” According to our court, the Legislature and the governor have a “joint responsibility … to determine the State’s spending priorities on an annual basis.”

Each year, the Legislature can appropriate at their discretion revenues that will be available in the forthcoming fiscal year, but not beyond that. They cannot cut out the future legislature and future governor from exercising their joint responsibility to determine the funding priorities in a future fiscal year.

[Clarkson: This one embarrassing act saved my life]

If the Legislature can appropriate future revenues for future years at the end of one governor’s administration, they can side-step the joint responsibility of the next Legislature and next governor, and by this logic, appropriate all funding for an entire governor’s term. This improperly infringes on the next governor’s line item veto power. But, it also infringes on the next Legislature’s appropriation authority.

Alaska Attorney General Kevin Clarkson testifies before state senators during a confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Jan. 29, 2019, in Juneau. (Becky Bohrer | Associated Press File)

Alaska Attorney General Kevin Clarkson testifies before state senators during a confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Jan. 29, 2019, in Juneau. (Becky Bohrer | Associated Press File)

For example, if a Legislature chose to future appropriate for four years, then the next Legislature would be stuck with that budget, unless it had the political will to amend or repeal it and the governor agrees. If the next governor wanted to maintain the priorities set in place by the prior Legislature, the governor could just veto any amendments by the Legislature. This would leave the next Legislature without the ability to present its own funding priorities to the governor.

This is why our court has described our constitutional process as prohibiting “appropriating a revenue stream for more than the immediately forthcoming fiscal year.” The logic put forth by some in the Legislature that future appropriating is fine because the current Legislature can repeal the previous future appropriation does not pass constitutional muster and ignores the very real political difference between trying to change an existing law and passing a new one.

[Opinion: Let’s teach our kids science, not scare them with half-truths]

There is no guarantee of the necessary political alignment to repeal the appropriation in the next Legislature. And, the Legislature does not get to pass an unconstitutional law just because they could repeal it next year. Our constitution requires an annual budgeting process, period.

Moreover, the Alaska Constitution forbids the dedication of funds for a specific purpose. This prohibition is to “preserve control of and responsibility for state spending in the legislature and the governor,” and to ensure “that the legislature” is “required to decide funding priorities annually on the merits of the various proposals presented.” The anti-dedication clause is violated whenever the legislature attempts to restrict the use of future revenues to a single purpose.

Our court may ultimately get to decide these questions, but in the meantime there is no reason that education should not be funded by this Legislature for the upcoming fiscal year. The Legislature can pass a contingent appropriation while the legal battle ensues. Or, the Legislature could pass the majority of education funding through two appropriations, approximately $1.2 billion, while leaving the smaller part of the 2018 appropriation, $30 million, for the legal battle.

The Legislature has multiple avenues to ensure the governor receives a valid appropriation funding education. If education is not funded this year, it’s on the Legislature, not the governor.


• Kevin Clarkson is the attorney general of the state of Alaska. My Turns and Letters to the Editor represent the view of the author, not the view of the Juneau Empire.


More in Opinion

Web
Have something to say?

Here’s how to add your voice to the conversation.

Win Gruening (courtesy)
My Turn: The millions add up. CBJ, get a grip on spending.

Ignoring essential basic services while spending money on projects and services that few want or need doesn’t make Juneau more affordable

(Juneau Empire file photo)
My Turn: Murkowski bought time for a new governor to do better

The senator said she added a provision that delays new federal penalties on Alaska for its high error rate in processing SNAP benefits.

Alexander B. Dolitsky
My Turn: When a writer’s courage against antisemitism shook a nation

Courage is doing what is necessary even when it’s difficult or scary.

Juneau Empire file photo
My Turn: At least you feel bad about the bill

Sen. Murkowski, you cannot say you voted with Alaskans in mind.

Cynthia Fancyboy (Courtesy photo)
My Turn: Cutting Medicaid hurts Alaska’s small villages and our children

Without Medicaid, I couldn’t afford the doctor visits, surgeries, medications, and hospital stays that have kept me healthy and working for Alaska’s kids over the years.

From left, Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) head to the Senate chamber at the Capitol in Washington on Tuesday morning, July 1, 2025. Senate Republicans were racing on Tuesday morning to lock down the votes to pass their sweeping tax and domestic police bill, after an all-night session of voting and negotiating with holdouts left Trump’s agenda hanging in the balance. (Tierney L. Cross/The New York Times)
My Turn: Murkowski’s moment of shame

She has no excuse for not following the model Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., set when he killed Joe Biden’s biggest initiative in 2021.

Gov. Mike Dunleavy speaks about his decision to veto House Bill 57 during a press conference at the Alaska State Capitol on Monday, May 19, 2025. (Jasz Garrett / Juneau Empire file photo)
Opinion: Governor deposits a veto to help predatory lenders

Thousands of Alaskans get so squeezed on their finances every year that… Continue reading

Deven Mitchell is the executive director and chief executive officer of the Alaska Permanent Fund Corp. (Photo courtesy of the Alaska Permanent Fund Corp.)
Opinion: The key to a stronger fund: Diversification

Diversification is a means of stabilizing returns and mitigating risk

Most Read