Sullivan ‘Stand Your Ground’ Claims Not Credible

Photo Credit: dmcdevitFor weeks US Senate candidate Dan Sullivan has been running radio ads claiming that “as Alaska’s Attorney General, [he] successfully fought to . . . pass Stand Your Ground.”

When one examines the public record, this claim is problematic on several levels.

The first, and most obvious, problem is that Dan Sullivan left the Attorney General’s Office in December 2010, more than two years before the Alaska Legislature passed Stand Your Ground in April 2013.

Sullivan supporters might protest that he is not claiming to have passed the bill, but rather to have “fought to . . . pass” it. Fair enough, but the clear impression the ad leaves is that the bill passed during Sullivan’s tenure as Attorney General.

Regardless, that option isn’t very helpful either, because a letter was submitted to the House Judiciary Committee by Sullivan’s Department of Law opposing the HB 381 (Stand Your Ground) bill during the 2010 Legislative Session. To make matters worse, Dan Sullivan’s name is in the signature line, though Assistant Attorney General John Skidmore actually signed it.

In the letter of opposition, Skidmore, speaking on Sullivan’s behalf, states unequivocally that the bill “would promote violence and be a bad idea for our state.”

The bill sponsor, Representative Mark Neuman (R- Big Lake), has suggested that Sullivan’s office worked with him on the bill to simplify the language. But Committee minutes and audio recordings indicate that despite the fact that there was collaboration to address some of the stated concerns, the bill was opposed at every stage of the legislative process by the Department of Law under Sullivan’s leadership. The objection at issue remained removal of the “duty to retreat” from Alaska Statutes.

The aforementioned letter opposing HB 381 (Stand Your Ground) was presented as part of the record for the first Committee hearing in House Judiciary Committee on March 15, 2010. At that time, Assistant Attorney General Anne Carpeneti raised the Department’s concerns and answered questions. Mr. Neuman points to committee minutes from that hearing to confirm that he worked with the Department of Law to simplify the language, which is correct.

However, at the very next hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on March 29, 2010, Carpeneti clearly stated that the Department of Law still had concerns with the new Committee Substitute reflecting the updated changes. That version of the bill was the working document for all hearings on HB 381 (Stand Your Ground) for the remainder of that last session of the 26th Legislature, and was re-introduced in January 2011 at the beginning of the 27th Legislature, at which time Dan Sullivan was no longer Attorney General.

Representative Neuman’s repeated suggestions that the letter of opposition, proffered on behalf of Dan Sullivan by Assistant Attorney General John Skidmore, was irrelevant after the language of the bill was simplified could not be more misguided. The letter specifically addressed section (6) of the original bill, which was the exact language retained in the working draft – “in any place where the person has a right to be.”

The opposition expressed was grounded in the Department of Law’s objection to that specific language, which, in their view, removed “the duty to retreat.” The letter went on to say, “this does not express a value for human life” or “encourage finding a resolution to disputes other than violence.”

When HB 381 (Stand Your Ground) was heard in the House Finance Committee on April 8, 2010, Assistant Attorney General Anne Carpeneti reiterated her concerns, stating – “we still have concerns that this bill will increase violence in our state” and will “eliminate the duty to retreat.”

In the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 15, 2010 the third of Sullivan’s Assistant Attorneys General testified against the bill. This time it was the Director of the Criminal Division of the Department of Law, Sue McLean, who stated the following:

“HB 381 and similar laws have been characterized as “stand your ground” laws – and this is a trend – but it’s not about standing your ground. It really is about shooting first. Prosecutors nationwide are opposed to this type of law, and the Alaska Department of Law is similarly opposed. It promotes and condones a level of violence that may not have been necessary.”

Later in the hearing McLean further opined, “HB 381 takes away the duty to reasonably retreat. That’s why we’re so greatly opposed to it.”

On April 16, 2010 Assistant Attorney General Sue McLean testified again before the Senate Judiciary Committee, asserting that “this change in the law would give unreasonable people a license to act unreasonably and not retreat.”

Later in that same hearing, a friendly amendment drafted by attorneys at the Department of Law was offered, at which time McLean maintained, notwithstanding, the “Department of Law is opposed to this law.” The bill later died in the Senate Finance Committee.

It is clear from the legislative record that Dan Sullivan’s Department of Law unequivocally opposed HB 381 (Stand Your Ground).

Dan Sullivan’s defense now rests on passing the buck, as he did in a US Senate debate sponsored by KOAN radio and organized by the Anchorage Republican Women’s Club. When pressed in debate on the letter submitted to the House Judiciary Committee in his name, Sullivan responded that it wasn’t his letter, he didn’t write it.

Sullivan spokesman Mike Anderson was said to have echoed the candidate’s sentiments in a piece published on Amandacoyne.com. “In regards to the Department of Law letter in question, Dan didn’t write the letter, he didn’t see it before it went out, nor does he agree with the attorney who wrote it,” said Anderson.

Coyne also reported speaking with Assistant Attorney General John Skidmore, who now apparently claims to have acted independent of Sullivan. Yet the letter bears Sullivan’s name.

How “out to lunch” would one have to be if he really did “support it from the beginning,” as Sullivan claimed in a June 13 interview on the Mike Porcaro Show on 650 KENI, and not know that his subordinates at the Department of Law were officially opposing it?

Skidmore’s public statements regarding Sullivan’s lack of awareness of what was going on in his own Department are not only unflattering to Sullivan, but bespeak even deeper problems at the Department of Law if whole Divisions are out there going rogue on the Governor and the Attorney General to whom they are supposed to be accountable.

Let’s assume, for purposes of argument, that Sullivan really was in the dark with respect to the letter written in his name. Let’s also assume that he was unaware of his Department’s opposition to Stand Your Ground. Does this make his case any more plausible?

Remember, Sullivan’s claim is not just that he “supported it from the beginning,” but that he also “fought . . . to pass Stand Your Ground.” Skidmore’s defense of Sullivan makes it abundantly clear that Sullivan, in fact, did NOT “fight . . . to pass Stand Your Ground.” Not only did he not fight to pass it, he was completely uninvolved, and even ignorant of what was going on. He clearly didn’t follow the deliberations, nor did he bother to state his opinion for the record. Furthermore, he obviously didn’t exercise proper oversight over his subordinates, or represent the Governor at whose pleasure he served. So does the claim that Sullivan “fought . . . to pass Stand Your Ground” pass the red face test under even the most minimal standards? The answer is obviously “no.”

The independent politifact.com was indeed correct in rating any claim that Sullivan was responsible for passing Stand Your Ground as a false claim.

It is also clear that the more nuanced claim that Sullivan “fought . . . to pass Stand Your Ground” is also a false claim.

What is unclear is whether Sullivan ever supported Stand Your Ground at all. There is not a scintilla of independent evidence that he did. The only thing we have to date is Sullivan’s own word, and a veiled statement by Representative Mark Neuman that he thinks Dan Sullivan supported it, despite his admission that he never personally discussed the legislation with him. Neuman’s deliberations were with Sullivan’s staff at the Department of Law who are on public record opposing HB 381 (Stand Your Ground) throughout Sullivan’s tenure as Attorney General, and it doesn’t help Sullivan’s case that the Department of Law reversed course and supported Stand Your Ground legislation after Sullivan left the Attorney General’s Office.

Whether Sullivan really supported Stand Your Ground before running for United States Senate . . .

You decide.