Each skirmish in Juneau this year made the picture a little clearer. Alaska is undergoing a political realignment, the kind it sees perhaps once a generation, and the consequences could be huge. What’s surprising about this battle isn’t the fact that it’s taking place at all, or that it centers around the Permanent Fund dividend — with a serious budget shortfall and tough choices to make, the stable earnings of the Permanent Fund are a natural topic for conversations about where to seek revenue for state expenses. What’s a surprise about the slow-motion battle Alaskans have been watching play out for several months is that it’s almost entirely contained within the ranks of the Alaska Republican Party. And depending on who emerges victorious from this Republican civil war, it will have sweeping consequences for years to come.

The battle lines were set earlier than most Alaskans realized, when last November’s election swept Gov. Mike Dunleavy into office based on his balanced-budget promises but, perhaps more importantly, a vow to not only return the state to paying out dividends under the 1982 formula, but also to issue back payments that would reflect the amount cut from PFD checks by Gov. Bill Walker and the Legislature during the past three years. All told, the PFD promise stacked up to $6,700 per eligible recipient. Several other candidates who echoed Dunleavy’s message of “full” PFDs also saw success, including some who toppled longstanding incumbents (for instance, Sarah Vance’s win over Paul Seaton in House District 31).

But when Gov. Dunleavy’s austerity budget was released in February, many Alaskans and legislators alike decided they weren’t willing to slash state services at the governor’s pace to pay out a $3,000 PFD, to say nothing of an additional $3,700 in back payments. After the governor rolled out his budget Feb. 13 with unprecedented service cuts and cost-shifts to municipalities, the House of Representatives formed a coalition majority of Republicans, Democrats and independents the very next day, with members that day speaking specifically of the need to push back against the governor’s plan. And although the Senate was organized more traditionally, with Republicans (and one rural Democrat, Sen. Lyman Hoffman) holding sway, rifts in that group emerged throughout the session and were exacerbated in the summer and fall.

The split

The bifurcated second legislative session proved the watershed moment for the internecine fight in the GOP. Republican legislators who, like Gov. Dunleavy, were willing to put the PFD ahead of all other funding priorities, flocked to Wasilla for the session, while most Republicans and Democrats gathered in Juneau.

The practical result was that Alaskans got to see for the first time that the Republican Party in Alaska is now one party in name only. In fact, it comprises two warring factions of roughly equal size: The first is the group that has traditionally been the power base of the Republican Party — veteran legislators who favor cuts, albeit not nearly so many or so quickly as the governor, and who are willing to reduce the dividend in order to preserve an Alaska that looks more like the one we have today with regard to the services the state offers. The second is a PFD diehard caucus, willing to put the state’s annual payments ahead of almost all else, that is strongest in the Mat-Su region, parts of the Kenai Peninsula and pockets of Anchorage. The gridlock the state is experiencing today owes to the fact that even though Republicans hold a numerical majority in both the House and Senate, as well as the governorship, there is a massive philosophical gulf between legislative leadership on one side and about half of the Republican legislators, Gov. Dunleavy and much of the party’s district-level infrastructure on the other. That’s why Senate Republicans, evenly split, didn’t confirm Rep. Laddie Shaw to fill departed Sen. Chris Birch’s vacant seat, and why former Dunleavy chief of staff and recent Alaska GOP chairman Tuckerman Babcock savaged Senate President Cathy Giessel via an op-ed immediately afterward. Rumors are swirling about a reorganization of the Senate majority that would make this reality explicit, resulting in a coalition majority much like the one in the House, with PFD hardliners on the outside looking in.

The future

So what happens next? Even if the Senate reorganizes, next year’s legislative session is likely to be a contentious one, as infighting between GOP legislators will continue and legislative leadership will likely remain opposed to many of Gov. Dunleavy’s fiscal priorities. And in the fall, it will really get interesting.

Barring some transcendent healing of party rifts, we’re headed for one of the most contentious Republican primaries in decades, with the two wings of the GOP going head to head. Nearly every Republican-held seat is likely to result in a primary challenge. Moderate incumbents will face opposition from right-wing PFD hardliners, and Dunleavy-allied legislators will try to fend off centrists touting a less extreme budget approach. Depending on who Alaskans feel better represents their interests, the Alaska GOP will see either an effective takeover by the governor’s allies or a return to the more pragmatic, compromise-amenable leadership that until recent years was more the norm. And needless to say, the internecine warfare presents an opportunity for Democrats, who are not only largely unified but also motivated by the gubernatorial recall effort and the endangerment of some of their highest priorities, such as unions and the University of Alaska.

The stakes next year will be even higher given that they will determine the makeup of the state redistricting board, and those in control of that process tend to draw district maps favorable to their allies and disadvantageous to their opponents. That means that whoever gains power in 2020 is likely to have an easier time retaining it during the decade that follows.