Analyzing the wild race for Alaska governor

Once again, the Alaska governor’s race has been upended. Last Friday Gov. Bill Walker withdrew as a candidate and endorsed Democrat Mark Begich against the Republican, Mike Dunleavy.

Walker’s withdrawal has thrown new uncertainty into the race. Ballots have already been printed for the Nov. 6 general election listing Walker, for example, which will confuse many voters.

Four years ago, there was another surprise, when Democrat Byron Mallott dropped out as a Democrat and teamed up with Walker on an independent ticket. The two went on to defeat incumbent Gov. Sean Parnell by a razor-thin margin.

This time the money was on Dunleavy even before Walker’s withdrawal and now that outcome seems even more certain.

There could always be an upset, but in general Alaska is a conservative state and Dunleavy’s conservative talk on the campaign trail appeals to that end of the spectrum.

Begich is a moderate pro-business Democrat but he leans left, to the liberal side.

That’s a superficial read on things because Begich has done well politically in Anchorage, where half the state lives and where he was twice elected mayor, and where Mayor Ethan Berkowotz, who is even more identified as a liberal than Begich was elected twice.

There will also be support for the Democratic ticket in other parts of the state, too, such as Juneau, parts of Fairbanks and much of rural Alaska despite Dunleavy’s family connections to Northwest Alaska.

In coastal communities where commercial fishing in important Dunleavy’s links to sports fish groups raises a red flag.

Also, Begich has broad name recognition from his one term in the U.S. Senate (he was narrowly defeated for reelection by Dan Sullivan) and as Anchorage mayor. Dunleavy is unknown in many parts of the state.

It might be a close race; another cliff-hanger like in 2014. That might have been true even if Walker had stayed in the race, with the vote split three ways.

Walker’s name still on the ballot will help Dunleavy because the incumbent governor will inevitably be a large number of people who are either confused or who will cast their ballot as protest votes will vote for Walker.

In a tight race that will make a difference, taking away votes from Begich.

What could also hurt Begich is his early endorsement of Ballot Measure 1, the controversial “salmon” initiative that is being fiercely fought by pro-development groups including organized labor, whose support Begich now needs.

By supporting the measure, Begich is courting votes in coastal communities and in Bristol Bay, where there is strong support for the salmon measure.

Ballot Measure 1 is a citizen initiative that would establish a new permitting system for construction projects on or near water bodies. Its opponents say it will burden resource development projects, harming the economy, and is mainly aimed at stopping large mining projects.

Proponents disagree, arguing the measure adds more protection for salmon streams. Begich has his arguments for endorsing the salmon initiative including that the permitting overhaul is long overdue, and the predictions of economic harm overblown.

Still, this is a calculated appeal to a group of voters, fisheries and tribal groups, who strongly favor Ballot Measure 1. This made sense in a three-way race as a way Begich could distinguish himself from Walker and Dunleavy, who oppose the measure.

In a two-way race, however, Begich must appeal to a large number of voters who are pro-development Democrats, such as organized labor, or independents, many who oppose the salmon initiative. This may hurt Begich overall.

Or it may not if there is an undercurrent of support for the salmon measure among voters that turns up a surprise win on Nov. 6.

On many issues Dunleavy is playing his cards close to his chest. His talks on the campaign trail have been mainly in generalities, with few details.

In fact, as a potential governor Dunleavy is almost a complete unknown as to what he might actually do. Begich, in contrast, has a long track record as Anchorage mayor and a U.S. senator. He is more of a known quantity.

Whether this counts for anything is unknown. Alaskans are prone to be supportive of political outsiders, and Dunleavy fits that category.

Among a handful of specifics Dunleavy offers is a commitment to “fully fund” the Permanent Fund dividend for at least the last three years, during which the PFD was funded at below the level set out in a formula in statute.

Dunleavy would also overhaul the administration of state health care programs – which at $1.5 billion a year is the state’s biggest budget item. He would also investigate whether private investors could finance a badly needed reconstruction of the Port of Alaska, formerly the Port of Anchorage.

More recently Dunleavy also said he favors a consolidation of public employee health insurance plans with the state of Alaska employee and retiree plan, to gain the efficiencies of scale.

This latest proposal, which Dunleavy also put forth as a state senator, is being investigated now by the Walker administration. The idea can be traced to Dunleavy’s original proposal.

However, the current idea, for a state-led health care authority, is getting strong pushback from many parts of the health care community who argue it may not have the advantages that are claimed.

Also, the idea of a large state health authority managing health insurance seems a contradiction for Dunleavy, sounding like the “big government” programs he has opposed.

Dunleavy is probably smart, however, to not offer many details of his ideas which can then be picked apart by critics. In contrast, Begich has put forth proposals with some details.

However, while these are specific proposals many are also ones that on closer inspection may turn out to be unworkable.

For example, a key Begich proposal is putting a PFD guarantee into the state constitution, which may sound good to some voters. But the effect of this, legislative attorneys have said, would be to give the dividend payment a priority ahead of other mandates now in the constitution, such as for education and public safety.

That’s because a PFD in the constitution would require payment of a specific amount following a formula now set in statute but which would be incorporated into a constitutional amendment.

Other requirements in the constitution, such as for support of education and safety, leave the dollars to the Legislature to decide. The PFD requirement would be specific, which would have the effect of having it be paid first in the budget ahead of education, safety and other priorities.

Begich’s proposal for a $2 billion state general obligation bond issue to pay for state capital needs over six years would also face tough sledding. It would have to be approved by the Legislature, where lawmakers would certainly add their own regional projects to Begich’s list.

The end product would likely be much different, and since voters must approve general obligation bonds if they sense that a lot of pork projects have been added they are unlikely to vote in favor of the bonds.