Composite 4.84 / 10, weighted per the Constitutional Weight Schedule.
Below the 700 bar, Author's Verdict: not supported.
Lands in the Unfit band at credit 527, below the 700 support line, Author's Verdict: not supported. (See section 7 for the full reasoning.)
No U.S. military service on record. Mike Dunleavy worked as a teacher and school administrator in rural Alaska before entering politics; this section is note-only and does not affect the conduct score.
The 14 measures
Each measure is scored 0–10 against an anchored example, with a cited source. Hover/expand why? for the reasoning.
| # | Measure | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| M01 | Duty to Constitution & Rule of Law | 4 | why?Two documented rule-of-law lapses pull this below the midline. (1) A line-item veto of $334,700 from the
Alaska Court System was adjudicated UNCONSTITUTIONAL as a separation-of-powers violation, the court found
it was retaliation against the judiciary for an Alaska Supreme Court ruling at odds with the governor's
views; the administration ultimately complied and repaid the funds. The veto power itself is legitimate and
not penalized; targeting a co-equal branch's funding to punish a ruling is conduct, and it is the gravest
mark on this record. (2) He missed the constitutional 45-day window to fill a Palmer Superior Court vacancy
in 2019, prompting the Chief Justice to instruct him to choose from the Judicial Council list. Affirmative
credit is due for cleanly accepting his 2022 ranked-choice reelection result and the lawful electoral process, no election-subversion conduct anywhere on the record. Net: below midline for the adjudicated separation-of-
powers abuse, lifted off the floor because he complied with the court order rather than defying it.
[source] |
| M02 | Party Over Country | 5 | why?Cross-aisle governing conduct is middling. The 2019 budget standoff and 182 line-item vetoes produced a
bruising, confrontational relationship with the Legislature, and the recall and override fights followed.
He later negotiated a reduced university cut over three years rather than holding the maximum, which shows
some capacity to climb down. The policy content of the cuts is NOT scored; only the posture toward the
other branch and the opposition is. Ordinary, not exemplary.
[source] |
| M03 | Persons of Equal Worth | 6 | why?No documented pattern of casting Alaskans or opponents as people who do not belong. Rhetoric toward
political adversaries has been combative at times but stays within ordinary political bounds, not
dehumanization. Upper-middle on the absence of anti-belonging conduct.
[source] |
| M04 | Weaponization of Justice | 4 | why?The court-system funding veto is a documented instance of using a facially legal executive power (the veto)
to punish another institution for a ruling the governor disliked, the textbook shape of weaponization, and
it was judicially found unconstitutional. This is weighed as a real conduct breach, not a contamination
false-positive: the issue is not that he vetoed, but that the veto was retaliatory against the judiciary.
Held off the capping floor because it was a single funding line, corrected by the courts and complied with, not a sustained campaign of agency retaliation against rivals or critics. No documented pattern of weaponizing
the AG, Guard, licensing, or contracts against personal enemies. Below midline.
[source] |
| M05 | Incitement / Anti-Belonging | 6 | why?No documented sustained incitement or enemy-making pattern, no directing confrontation or branding
opponents as enemies who must be defeated by force. Political heat over budget and policy is not scored.
Upper-middle for the absence of a documented incitement pattern.
[source] |
| M06 | Fiduciary Conduct | 4 | why?The governor's office spent more than $35,000 in state funds on online ads and mailers that attacked
legislative opponents and boosted allies, partisan use of public money barred by Alaska ethics law. An
independent investigator found the campaign broke state ethics law (blaming "quick decisions" and a "lack of
appropriate staff ethics awareness and supervision"), and Dunleavy reimbursed the state $2,800 to settle
three complaints. He disclaimed personal knowledge of the specific mailers; that mitigates intent but the
misuse of public funds for partisan advantage on his watch is a genuine fiduciary breach, not a mere
appearance-concern, since it was adjudicated by the personnel board's investigator. Below midline.
[source] |
| M07 | Duty to Call Out | 5 | why?The active-duty standard is calling out one's own coalition at cost. No prominent documented instance of
Dunleavy breaking with his own party at real political cost, but also no documented capitulation that would
pull this down. The reduced-cut compromise with the Legislature shows pragmatism over purity. Squarely
middle, neither a profile-in-courage moment nor a documented failure.
[source] |
| M08 | The Discretion Test | 4 | why?The discretion test asks how power is wielded when no one is watching. Two episodes cut against him: the
partisan-mailer spending where the investigator faulted a "lack of appropriate staff ethics awareness and
supervision," and the quiet handling of the Clarkson matter. Even crediting his disclaimed personal
knowledge, the pattern is one of insufficient guardrails on the use of the office's resources and authority.
Below midline.
[source] |
| M09 | The No-Camera Test | 4 | why?Public/private consistency is strained by the Clarkson episode. Publicly the administration professed the
"highest level of professional conduct" and protection of state employees; privately, senior officials
(including the chief of staff) knew for months that the attorney general had sent a junior staffer hundreds
of unwelcome texts, quietly placed him on unpaid leave, and, per the reporting, told the woman to keep it
quiet, with Dunleavy not initially viewing resignation as necessary. The gap between the public posture and
the private handling of a subordinate's misconduct toward a vulnerable employee is a real consistency drag.
Below midline.
[source] |
| M10 | Constituent-vs-Donor Vote | 5 | why?Constituency fidelity is mixed and largely policy-driven (PFD size, budget priorities), those policy
choices are NOT scored. On conduct, he has governed as elected and faced and survived a recall without
abandoning office. No documented betrayal of the electorate's process. Middle.
[source] |
| M11 | Net-Worth Trajectory | 5 | why?M11 scores only office-attributable enrichment, self-dealing, no-bid contracts to associates, family
payments, pay-to-play. No documented evidence of personal financial enrichment through the office. The
partisan-mailer spending was misuse of public funds for political (not personal-financial) advantage, scored
under M06, not double-counted here. Absent a documented enrichment finding, this sits at the neutral middle
rather than higher, reflecting the adjacent fiduciary lapse on public funds.
[source] |
| M12 | Floor Decorum | 5 | why?Institutional decorum is ordinary. He has maintained the formal dignity of the office and participated in
normal gubernatorial and NGA functions. The retaliatory court-system veto is scored as a rule-of-law and
weaponization matter under M01/M04 rather than re-counted as decorum. Middle.
[source] |
| M13 | Lying & Misleading | 5 | why?No documented sustained falsehood pattern. His "I was unaware of the mailers" statement is partly
corroborated by the investigator's finding of staff-level decisions, though it sits uneasily beside the
$35K+ spent in his office's name. The Clarkson public statements emphasizing employee protection are in
tension with the quiet internal handling. These are honesty-adjacent strains, not a documented pattern of
deliberate deception. Middle.
[source] |
| M14 | Knowledge Depth | 6 | why?Substantive competence is adequate-to-solid. He has governed two full terms, managed annual budgets through
a volatile oil-revenue and PFD environment, released detailed fiscal plans (FY2027 budget Dec 2025), and
adjusted course (the phased university cut) when initial moves proved unworkable. Command of the substance
of Alaska fiscal policy is real; the execution missteps (ethics-law exposure, the unconstitutional veto)
temper it. Upper-middle.
[source] |
Why not higher, the points withheld
The standard is the seat; the ceiling is a perfect 10. Every withheld point traces to documented conduct, weighed where the measures and attributes say it belongs, shown openly here, the same way the earned points are.
| Where | Documented conduct | Mitigation weighed |
|---|---|---|
| M01 | Line-item veto of $334,700 from the Alaska Court System adjudicated unconstitutional as a separation-of-powers violation (retaliation for a Supreme Court ruling); also missed the constitutional 45-day window to fill a Palmer Superior Court seat in 2019 ↳ Duty to Constitution / Rule of Law | Complied with the court order and repaid the funds; cleanly accepted his 2022 RCV reelection result |
| M04 | Used the veto, a facially legal power, to punish the judiciary for a disfavored ruling; judicially found unconstitutional ↳ Weaponization of state power against a co-equal branch | Single funding line, corrected by courts and complied with; no documented pattern of agency retaliation against personal rivals |
| M06 | Governor's office spent $35K+ in state funds on partisan ads/mailers attacking legislators and boosting allies; investigator found ethics-law violation; $2,800 repaid to settle ↳ Fiduciary breach, partisan misuse of public funds | Disclaimed personal knowledge of specific mailers; investigator faulted staff haste/supervision |
| M09 | Administration knew for months of AG Clarkson's unwelcome texts to a junior staffer, quietly suspended him, reportedly told the woman to keep quiet; governor did not initially see resignation as necessary, while publicly professing employee protection ↳ Private/public consistency on handling subordinate misconduct | Clarkson did resign once reporting surfaced; governor's public statement accepted his responsibility |
| M08 | Investigator faulted 'lack of appropriate staff ethics awareness and supervision' on use of office resources; quiet handling of Clarkson ↳ Discretion test, guardrails on office authority | No evidence of personal direction of the violations |
The Four Pillars, worthy to be followed?
A separate axis from the 14 measures. The measures ask did their conduct meet the standard; the Pillars ask is this someone worthy to be elevated and followed at all. The two can diverge, when they do, the divergence is the finding.
| # | Pillar | Score | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| I | Trust & Loyalty
| 5 | why?Attributes: Steadiness, Loyalty, Selfless Service. He weathered a sustained recall campaign without
abandoning the office and accepted the lawful electoral process, including his RCV reelection. Held at the
midline by the drag toward Self-Interest evident in the partisan-mailer use of public funds.
|
| II | Aspiration & Integrity
| 4 | why?Attributes: Conviction, Authenticity, Self-Reflection, Teachability. The phased university-cut climbdown
shows some teachability. Pulled below midline by the ethics settlement and the partial-credit "I was
unaware" posture toward the mailers spent in his office's name.
|
| III | Protection & Influence
| 4 | why?Attributes: Protection, Stewardship, Accountability, and their opposites. The court-system veto is a drag
toward Exploitation of power against another branch; the Clarkson handling is a drag toward failing to
protect a vulnerable employee. The court compliance and Clarkson's eventual departure keep it off the floor.
|
| IV | Legacy & Virtue
| 4 | why?Attributes: Integrity, Moral Courage, Justice. The adjudicated unconstitutional veto and the public-funds
ethics finding are real Integrity drags that a record should not want propagated; ordinary two-term
governance and clean acceptance of election results temper but do not erase them.
|
| TOTAL: Weak | 17/40 |
Total 17/40, Adequate-to-weak. The pillars track the conduct composite: ordinary institutional steadiness undercut by an adjudicated separation-of-powers abuse, a public-funds ethics finding, and the Clarkson handling.
What the Four Pillars are & the questions behind each →
In their own words
“I did not know about these communications before they were sent, and had no personal role in drafting, designing, publishing, reviewing, or approving the advertisements.”
Statement on settling ethics complaints over state-funded partisan mailers · Anchorage Daily News · CONTESTED · cite
“There is nothing more important than the protection of our state employees, and that includes feeling safe when an employee is at work.”
Statement on AG Kevin Clarkson's resignation, in tension with reporting that his office knew for months and kept it quiet · Anchorage Daily News · CONTESTED · cite
“It brings some finality, and it allows us to now move forward and really start to plan for the next four years.”
After ranked-choice tabulation confirmed his reelection win · KTOO · CIVIC · cite
Full personnel file
1. Identity
Michael J. "Mike" Dunleavy. 12th Governor of Alaska, in office since December 3, 2018; reelected 2022 in the state's first top-four-primary and ranked-choice general election; term-limited, term ends December 2026. Republican. Former Alaska State Senator (2013-2018) and longtime rural-Alaska teacher and school administrator. No military service.
2. Voting / Legislative Profile
Gubernatorial record (no DW-NOMINATE/Voteview/Lugar, those do not apply to governors). Defined by aggressive use of the line-item veto, most notably the June 2019 budget that struck 182 line items and cut ~$130M from the University of Alaska (later phased to a smaller three-year reduction). Annual budgets dominated by oil-revenue volatility and Permanent Fund Dividend politics; FY2027 budget released Dec 2025. Policy content of the budget is not scored here; the conduct around the vetoes (notably the court-system funding veto) is.
3. Constitutional Moments
Court-system funding veto (2019-2020): the Alaska Superior Court ruled Dunleavy's $334,700 veto of court funding unconstitutional, finding it retaliated against the judiciary for a Supreme Court ruling at odds with his views; the administration complied and repaid the funds in January 2021. Palmer Superior Court vacancy (2019): missed the constitutional 45-day appointment window, prompting the Chief Justice to direct selection from the Judicial Council list. Recall (2019-2021): a recall campaign citing the judicial-appointment delay, the partisan mailers, and veto conduct gathered 62,373 signatures before ending short of the threshold; the Alaska Supreme Court had allowed it to proceed. 2022 reelection: accepted the ranked-choice result cleanly.
4. Rhetoric & Discourse Profile
No documented sustained incitement or anti-belonging pattern. Rhetoric toward the Legislature and political opponents has been combative during budget fights but stays within ordinary political bounds, not dehumanization. Net middle-to-upper on the absence of a documented enemy-making pattern.
5. Fiduciary Profile
The central fiduciary concern is partisan misuse of public funds: the governor's office spent $35,000+ in state money on ads and mailers attacking legislative opponents and boosting allies, an independent investigator found it violated Alaska ethics law (citing staff "quick decisions" and inadequate supervision), and Dunleavy repaid $2,800 to settle three complaints. He disclaimed personal knowledge of the specific mailers. No documented office-attributable personal enrichment (no self-dealing or pay-to-play finding), so M11 reflects the absence of enrichment while M06/M08 carry the public-funds and supervision lapses.
6. Severity-Class Conduct
The court-system funding veto adjudicated unconstitutional as retaliation against the judiciary is the closest this record comes to Criterion-8 process subversion, using a facially legal executive power to defeat a constitutional purpose (separation of powers). It is weighed as a serious conduct breach in M01/M04 but does NOT rise to a capping flag: it was a single funding line, judicially corrected, and the administration COMPLIED with the order and repaid the money rather than defying it, the opposite of sustained defiance. No documented pattern of enemy-making/incitement (Criterion 10) and no terminal (Criteria 1-4) conduct. Flag count: zero capping.
7. What The Framework Says
An honest middle-to-weak record. Mike Dunleavy governs as a normal two-term executive in most respects, he accepted his ranked-choice reelection cleanly, complied with adverse court orders, and shows no incitement or enrichment pattern. But three documented conduct concerns hold the composite down: a court-system funding veto adjudicated UNCONSTITUTIONAL as retaliation against the judiciary, an independent ethics finding that his office misused $35K+ in public funds for partisan mailers, and the quiet handling of his attorney general's misconduct toward a junior employee against a public posture of employee protection. None rises to capping severity, crucially, he complied with the court rather than defying it, but together they place this record below the bar. Adequate-to-unfit, not sound.
8. Sources & Where To Look Deeper
Tier 1 (primary): Alaska Superior/Supreme Court rulings on court-system veto · Personnel Board ethics settlement (investigator findings)
Tier 2: Anchorage Daily News / ProPublica (Clarkson investigation) · Ballotpedia governor profile
Research links: Official Governor site · Ballotpedia · National Governors Association · Wikipedia
Scores derive from the fixed Constitutional Weight Schedule. The bar does not move. Conduct, not party.