Arguments heard in recall case

ANCHORAGE -- Attorneys for the state of Alaska and for Valley Residents for a Citizen Legislature had a chance to square off Friday, arguing before Anchorage Superior Court Judge Sharon Gleason in a case involving the Ogan recall effort.

The case was initiated this spring by Houston resident Tom Baird in an attempt to stop a recall effort against Ogan. Oral arguments in the case were heard by Gleason Friday. Gleason said she planned to submit a written decision by Wednesday, in time to meet a Aug. 26 Division of Elections deadline for printing special advance ballots that will be sent overseas.

Thomas Amodio, the attorney for Valley Residents for a Citizen Legislature, argued that Gleason should issue an injunction, stopping the recall, on the grounds that the recall charges were not violations of the law.

"The allegation they want to imply is corruption; there is no violation of law," Amodio said. "It's legally insufficient -- it doesn't show how it was violative of Alaska law."

Amodio also argued that Ogan, in every action he took after his decision to do contractual consulting work with coal-bed methane company Evergreen Resources Alaska, strictly followed the Legislature's uniform rules of conduct. He voted on House Bill 69 because the rules forced him to, Amodio argued, as they would any legislator who has a potential conflict of interest with pending legislation.

"Senator Ogan did not abstain from House Bill 69, as required by the uniform rules," Amodio argued. "To follow that conduct and then be recalled is simply wrong. As a matter of general practice, this is the way our Legislature works -- it's a common practice that, regardless of the conflict or potential conflict, there will be an objection made and by the uniform rules, the legislator must vote."

Amodio also argued that because Division of Elections Director Laura Glaiser changed portions of four of the recall charges, and deleted one charge, the recall grounds had been substantially changed. Gleason asked Amodio what he suggested as a remedy if a portion of the recall grounds had been improperly deleted.

"Because it was legally insufficient, the collection of signatures was based on legally insufficient allegations," Amodio said. "That, therefore, voids the signature-gathering. The proper relief would be at least a preliminary injunction, if not a permanent injunction."

John Sedor, an attorney who contracted with the state to analyze whether the recall petition should be approved, argued that Alaska does not have a requirement that recalls be based only on violations of law.

"What the plaintiffs seek is an evidentiary hearing -- maybe we should follow Washington; Washington has a statute that provides for evidentiary hearings," Sedor said. "Here, there is no right to an evidentiary hearing … This seat is not Sen. Ogan's seat, it's the public's seat, and he takes that seat subject to the right of recall. To the extent that the facts are at issue, those facts are decided by the voters."

Gleason asked Sedor what, in his opinion, the Alaska Supreme Court in previous rulings intended as due-process rights for recall subjects. Sedor said although the Alaska Supreme Court has avoided ruling directly on what recall subjects' due-process rights should be, another Valley case -- Matanuska Electric Association vs. Rewire the Board -- indicates there is no requirement for evidence in state statute, beyond the phrase "for cause."

"The [Alaska] Supreme Court … three times invited the Legislature to make changes in the recall process, but the legislature has not taken up that initiative," Sedor said.

After the oral arguments, Sedor and Amodio said they have not yet considered whether they will appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court if they object to Gleason's ruling. Neither was willing to speculate on what Gleason's decision may be, but said a range of options are open to the court.

Contact Rindi White at rindi.white@frontiersman.com.