AG claims he made 'strategic choice' refusing to defend Alaska election law
Temporary Attorney General Stephen Cox said he made a “strategic choice” to be neutral on a critical Supreme Court case that could deny many Alaskans the right to participate in elections.
Temporary Attorney General Stephen Cox refused to defend Alaska law on counting absentee ballots as long as they are postmarked by Election Day. He claimed to be neutral, but that amounts to opposition to Alaska law.
He’s right that this is strategic.
It’s a strategic choice for Cox’s post-Dunleavy career in the Trumposphere and the Republican Party. It’s certainly not a strategic choice that is in the best interest of Alaska.
Another strategic choice that Cox is making is that he has gone out of his way in his confirmation hearings to appear to be the most conciliatory attorney on the planet, a guy with no sharp edges and not a hint of stridency or political extremism.
The amicus briefs that he has signed on topics ranging from birthright citizenship to the rights of cake decorators reveal his true character as a right-wing culture warrior and zealot. But he knows he can’t appear that way in confirmation hearings where he must convince legislators who haven’t read the amicus briefs that his is a voice of moderation.
During his confirmation hearing before the Senate State Affairs Committee Thursday, Cox and Sen. Bill Wielechowski had a contentious exchange about this critical court case that could ban the practice of counting ballots received in the mail after Election Day in Alaska.
That the temporary general tried to portray his alleged neutrality in this case as a brilliant and virtuous legal course is nonsense.
He didn’t defend the Alaska rules because doing so would ruffle the feathers of the nation’s leading election denier and go against the wishes of the Republican National Committee.
The Legislature should refuse to confirm him for many reasons. This is one of the big ones.
The long-standing law in Alaska requires that absentee ballots postmarked on Election Day must be counted if they are received within 10 or 15 days after Election Day, depending upon the circumstances. This system has worked well in Alaska where the challenges of geography can be overwhelming.
Wielechowski wanted to know why Cox refused to sign onto an amicus brief that supported counting ballots that are postmarked on time. Or to declare that the Alaska law is sound and should remain in place.
Cox could do nothing but repeat the words “strategic choice” as a cowardly mantra.
“We made the strategic choice to file our own brief in support of neither party, to paint the picture of Alaska and the geographic and logistical challenges,” Cox claimed.
“We made a strategic choice,” he said a second time.
“I actually like briefs in support of neither party that are very fact based and I think. And again, I realize people might disagree, but I think sometimes they get noticed the most. But that was a strategic choice,” he said.
“We can have a disagreement on the best choice. And we made a strategic choice,” Cox said for the fifth time.
Cox had no answer as to why he didn’t defend the Alaska law in the amicus brief his office wrote, while claiming that the brief gave him a good chance to write about Alaska elections.
“Since you did your own brief why didn’t you just in your own brief urge the court to rule against the RNC?” Wielechowski asked.
“Why didn’t you stand up for Alaska and say to the court this is a bad law for Alaska? We want you to strike this down,” Wielechowski said.
“We made the strategic choice to make a fact-based brief in support of neither party,” Cox said.
“I would have actually preferred you to stand up for Alaska,” Wielechowski said.
That would have been a strategic choice worth making for Alaska.
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.