Greg Lange of Bismarck, North Dakota, drops off his absentee ballot and his wife’s at the Bismarck Burleigh County Office Building on June 8, 2026. (Photo by Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor)
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can count mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, a blow to the Trump administration and some Republican states that had urged the justices to require all ballots to arrive by the close of polls.
In a 5-4 decision, the court found that federal law does not prevent states from accepting late-arriving ballots. The ruling is a victory for Democrats and voting rights advocates, who had said setting a hard, Election Day deadline for ballot arrival would risk disenfranchising voters amid fears of deteriorating mail service.
The case, RNC vs. Watson, centered on whether federal law overrides a Mississippi law that requires mail-in ballots postmarked on or before Election Day to be counted as long as they arrive within five business days of the election. Thirteen states have similar laws, which extend a “grace period” to ballots that arrive through the mail after polls close.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, said that federal law didn’t preempt the state law because elections represent when voters make a decision, which must be done on or before Election Day. Voters who cast their ballot by mail have made a decision by Election Day, Barrett reasoned.
“The electorate’s choice is made when voting is complete, not when ballots are received,” Barrett wrote.
Barrett cautioned that the decision rested on the interpretation of federal law, not the U.S. Constitution. She noted that the court was not considering the scope of Congress’ authority to regulate federal elections — suggesting that if Congress passes a nationwide ballot arrival deadline that the justices might uphold such a law.
Barrett was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined part of the dissent.
“If ballots received after election day are added to the set of ballots that dictate the election’s outcome, the electorate’s choice does not occur on election day, and the federal election-day statutes are violated,” Alito wrote.
States with grace periods
In addition to Mississippi, other states with some form of grace period include Alaska, California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia.
David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, called the Supreme Court decision a win for these states, as well as 30 states that accept military and overseas ballots delivered after Election Day.
“This is a victory for all the states and for all those who respect the will of the Founders, who ensured the security of our elections by giving the power to run those elections to the states — not to one person sitting in Washington, DC,” Becker said in a statement.
Some local election officials had warned that requiring all ballots to be received by the close of polls would burden their offices as they try to quickly warn voters about the change just months before the midterms. More ballot drop boxes that let voters keep their ballots out of the mail could help, they say, but also cost money.
“Ultimately, the voters may be harmed as well,” election officials in California, Massachusetts, Oregon and Washington wrote in a court brief, warning that some ballots may not be received in time, “despite best efforts by careful and proactive administrators and local governments.”
But some Republican secretaries of state had urged the justices to strike down “grace period” laws. Louisiana Secretary of State Nancy Landry and Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray wrote in a court brief that an Election Day deadline “provides the bright-line rule that effective election administration demands.”
At least 725,000 ballots were postmarked by Election Day 2024 and arrived within a legally accepted post-election window, The New York Times has reported, citing election officials in 14 of 22 states and territories where late-arriving ballots were accepted that year.
Overall, about 30% of voters cast a mail ballot in 2024, according to data gathered by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.
RNC challenged law
The Republican National Committee challenged the Mississippi law, which was defended by Mississippi Republican Secretary of State Michael Watson. The RNC argued a longstanding federal law that sets the Tuesday after the first Monday in November as Election Day for federal offices preempted state laws that allow ballots cast by Election Day, but received later, to count.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in October 2024 that federal law requires ballots to be received by Election Day. President Donald Trump last year also unilaterally attempted to require mail ballots to be received by the end of Election Day in a sweeping executive order on elections. Much of that order was blocked in federal court.
The Supreme Court “rejected the RNC’s radical attempt to rewrite election laws in a way that would have resulted in the rejection of hundreds of thousands of ballots and the disenfranchisement of voters nationwide through no fault of their own,” Elisabeth Frost, litigation chair at Elias Law Group, said in a statement.
Elias Law Group represented two nonprofit voting rights groups, Vet Voice Foundation and the Mississippi Alliance for Retired Americans, that had intervened as defendants in the case.
The Supreme Court issued Monday’s decision against a backdrop of uncertainty surrounding mail ballots. Trump signed an executive order in March that would restrict voting by mail by requiring states to provide lists of possible mail ballot voters to the U.S. Postal Service in advance. A federal judge recently blocked major portions of the order, triggering a near-certain appeal.
Republican National Committee chairman Joe Gruters accused Democrats of inviting chaos by allowing elections to “drag on” for days and weeks after ballots are cast. He said Republicans wouldn’t be deterred by the decision.
“If we want fair and secure elections, Election Day should mean exactly what it says, which is why this decision makes it even more imperative that Congress pass the SAVE America Act,” Gruters said in a statement, referring to restrictive voter legislation pushed by Trump that lacks the votes to pass the U.S. Senate.
Trump said the decision was a “tremendous loss” in a social media post and again urged passage of the SAVE America Act.
Paul Clement, an attorney for the Republican National Committee, said during oral arguments at the Supreme Court in March the prospect that the outcome of an election could change because of ballots arriving after Election Day would be unacceptable to losing candidates. After the 2020 election, President Donald Trump demanded election officials not count ballots that came in after Election Day, but states kept counting ballots.
“If you have an election and the election is going to turn on late-arriving ballots in a way that means what everybody kind of thought was the result on Election Day ends up being the opposite a week later, 21 days later, the losers are not going to accept that result. Full stop,” Clement told the justices.
Attorneys for Watson argued that both legal and historical precedent supported his position. States may decide that voters have made their final choices when ballots are submitted to state officials rather than when they’re received, according to Watson.
Watson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Dan Sullivan of Petersburg announced his campaign for the U.S. Senate on May 29 to challenge incumbent U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan. (Photo courtesy of Dan Sullivan)
An Anchorage judge ruled on Friday the Alaska Division of Elections’ decision to disqualify a U.S. Senate candidate with the same name as the incumbent was unlawful. The state immediately appealed the decision, sending the case to the Alaska Supreme Court on Monday.
In the Friday night ruling, the judge determined Dan J. Sullivan, a retired teacher from Petersburg, is an eligible candidate for U.S. Senate and that the division shall include his name on the August 18 primary ballot.
The division’s decision to disqualify Sullivan because it determined his candidacy was not filed in “good faith” was unconstitutional, Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews ruled. “The director’s assertion that Mr. Sullivan seeks to confuse or misguide voters is not supported by a preponderance of evidence,” he wrote.
Matthews wrote that the division accepted “at face value” complaints against the candidate made by the incumbent and the Alaska Republican Party while disregarding Sullivan’s assertions that his campaign was sincere.
The division made the unprecedented decision to remove Sullivan from the ballot on June 15, following allegations from Republican groups that he was a “sham candidate” and cited his similar name, party affiliation and campaign materials as evidence of an intention to confuse voters by running for U.S. Senate. In court on Friday morning, an attorney for the division defended the decision, saying it was within the division’s authority to remove a candidate to prevent voter confusion, and if a candidate is seeking to be placed on the ballot to “compromise the fairness of the ballot.”
Sullivan defended his candidacy as genuine, and appealed the division’s decision in state court. In oral arguments, his attorney argued Sullivan met all the constitutional requirements for candidacy, and the division had unlawfully added a subjective criteria.
The judge agreed, saying the division does not have the authority to add additional requirements for a candidate. While the director has the authority to prepare the ballot in the interest of “fairness, simplicity and clarity” for voters, the judge said the statute supports “ballot design solutions,” including name formatting and instructions. “It does not authorize the removal of a candidate who satisfies the legal qualifications for office,” Matthews wrote.
State regulation already prescribes what should happen if two identically named candidates appear on the same ballot. The ballot would include candidates’ middle initials — Dan J. Sullivan for the candidate from Petersburg, and Dan S. Sullivan for the incumbent senator.
The judge also denied the Alaska Republican Party’s motion to intervene in the case as a third party, but said the court would consider its position as an amicus brief.
The case is being fast-tracked ahead of the division’s deadline to certify and print primary ballots on Tuesday at noon. The Alaska Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments in the state’s appeal for 10am on Monday, which will be livestreamed for the public.
A drone image shows widespread flooding in the Mendenhall Valley. (Image courtesy of Rich Ross)
A drone image shows widespread flooding in the Mendenhall Valley. (Image courtesy of Rich Ross/2024)
NOTN- Residents affected by recurring glacial lake outburst floods in Juneau are calling for a faster path toward a long-term flood mitigation solution, arguing that years of annual preparation, uncertainty and recovery are taking a growing toll on the community.
Members of Juneau Flood Solution Advocates gathered recently at Chapel by the Lake to hear updates from scientists studying Suicide Basin as well as mining industry leaders to discuss potential solutions for reducing the threat posed by floods along the Mendenhall River.
The grassroots group formed in 2024 following major flooding in the Mendenhall Valley. Since then, members have worked to support neighbors, coordinate resources and advocate for permanent flood mitigation measures.
“We can’t do this every year,” said Debbie Penrose Fisher, a member of the group, “Whatever it takes to get this expedited on a fast track, and to include local experts, that’s the path to the finish line. Folks are exhausted, and they’re exhausted from the equipment, the noise, the intrusion on their property, to the anxiety of preparing, and we just want a solution.”
Many residents have expressed frustration with the timeline for a permanent solution. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been studying several long-term mitigation options, including a proposed tunnel that would continuously drain water from Suicide Basin to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic releases.
Fisher said some residents would like to see additional expertise brought into the discussion, including mining industry engineers with experience in large-scale tunneling and earth-moving projects.
“The mining industry can do this. They do this all the time,” Fisher said, “The challenge is that, and the city is working really hard to protect us, The Corp is saying six plus years until a long term solution, and even recently are back to 10 to 15 years. We can’t wait that long. We can’t. Our push is to get the mining industry into a conversation with the Corps, so together they can solve this.”
At the same time, city officials say the challenge remains unprecedented and requires balancing safety, environmental concerns, costs and regulatory requirements.
“There is no playbook for how to address glacial lake outburst flooding in an urban area,” Said Deputy City Manager Robert Barr in an email response to News of the North, “For every decision, we and our counterparts at other agencies are having to balance public safety considerations, cost and fiscal considerations, and the regulatory processes that bound any mitigation actions.”
Officials said they understand residents’ concerns and are continuing to gather public input through community meetings and outreach efforts. Many of the same questions being asked by residents are also being asked by city leaders, including what future floods may look like, what would happen if temporary flood barriers fail and how permanent solutions can be implemented as quickly and safely as possible.
The city has invested heavily in temporary flood protection measures, including the installation and reinforcement of HESCO barriers along vulnerable sections of the river. Officials say those efforts helped reduce damage during a larger flood event last year compared with the devastating flooding experienced in 2024.
“Nature always has the potential to humble us,” Barr said. “No human-created solution to a natural phenomenon is going to be perfect.”
He emphasized that current projects are intended to reduce risk while longer-term solutions are evaluated.
The city also noted that the flood threat is unlike any faced by another urban community worldwide.
“This hazard does not occur in any other urban area in the world,” officials said. “Which is why it is so critical for us all to be working together and pulling in the same direction. The way our community has come together to research and learn about the science and potential solutions is impressive. It wasn’t too long ago where we became a community full of knowledge and understanding about things like antigens and antibodies, PCR tests and vaccines. Today, we’ve learned more than we ever thought we would about glacial dynamics, dams, levees, bank armoring, and tunnels. I’m optimistic, with all of the people and agencies tackling this problem, we’ll get to a solution as quickly as possible.”
While no definitive timeline has been established for a permanent solution, city officials said the situation remains fluid and pledged to keep residents informed as new information becomes available.
Upcoming public engagement opportunities include a Community Flood Preparedness Training event scheduled for July 11 at Dimond Park and a July 20 Committee of the Whole meeting, where U.S. Army Corps of Engineers officials are expected to provide updates on ongoing studies and mitigation efforts. Officials encouraged residents with questions or concerns to contact the city at floodresponse@juneau.gov or reach out to their Assembly representatives
Fliers posted at the University of Alaska Anchorage’s Avis Alaska Sports Complex on June 25, 2026, advertise summer job openings and internships for students. Even though the positions are entry-level, temporary or internships, posted hourly pay rates on some fliers are above $20 an hour. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)
Starting next week, Alaska’s lowest-paid workers will be entitled to more money.
On July 1, the state’s minimum wage will rise to $14 an hour, a $1 bump from the current level. The increase is the result of a voter-approved ballot initiative that mandated paid sick leave, as well as stepped-up minimum wages.
The first increase took pay up to $13 an hour last year, and next year, the minimum wage is scheduled to rise to $15 an hour. In subsequent years, the state’s minimum wage is to rise with the inflation rate, under the voter-approved initiative.
Salaried workers are also covered by the minimum wage increase. Under state reuglations, minimum pay for salaried workers, with some exceptions, must be at least twice the hourly minimum wage, based on a 40-hour workweek.
Just how many workers will be affected by next week’s mandated pay increase is unclear.
Dan Robinson, research chief at the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, believes that there will be relatively few people affected by the change.
“This will not change very much because the situation for workers for a while now has been that employers have had to pay higher wages,” Robinson said.
Even a $14-an-hour wage for what are normally low-paid jobs was not high enough for many employers to attract workers, he said.GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.SUBSCRIBE
That is not because of any boom in available jobs in Alaska. The state’s picture is static, Robinson noted. Gains in private sector employment have been almost exactly offset by losses in government employment, mostly because of federal job losses, according to the state’s most recent analysis.
Rather, it is a product of demographic factors, including continued net-outmigration, meaning more people leaving Alaska than moving into the state. As of last year, Alaska had 13 consecutive years of net-outmigration, a post-World War II record.
Other factors shaping the labor force are Alaska’s aging population and immigration curbs.
Overall, there are “fewer people here seeking work than at other points in our history,” Robinson said. “So it’s kind of a feedback loop.”
The minimum wage increases are expected to affect more people in future years, when they are tied to inflation, he said.
A different perspective was offered in 2024 by the National Employment Labor Project, a nonprofit pro-labor advocacy group.
Prior to that year’s election, the organization estimated that 31,000 people in Alaska would earn more if the state’s minimum wage were raised. More women than men would see the benefits, since women are more likely to be in minimum wage-paying jobs, according to the analysis.
Robinson said the Department of Labor and Workforce Development does not have solid numbers on how many workers are earning minimum wage or anything closer to it.
The department does have information showing pay rates for different economic sectors and job categories, though that is also incomplete because it relies on surveys.
Alaska’s lowest-paid workers, based on those survey results, are in the food preparation and service sector, according to the Department of Labor and Workforce Development’s analysis. Within that sector, median hourly wages range from $12.65 for waiters and waitresses to $25.09 for chefs and head cooks, according to the survey data.
Alaska is among four states and more than two dozen municipalities with scheduled minimum wage increases going into effect in July. And by the end of the year, 88 jurisdictions across the country will have raised their minimum wages, according to the National Employment Labor Project.
As of Jan. 1, 20 states had minimum wages that were higher than Alaska’s $13-an-hour rate, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. Next week’s increase in Alaska, along with phased-in increases elsewhere, may change those rankings a bit.
The nation’s highest state minimum wage is in the District of Columbia, at $17.95 an hour, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. There are eight states with either no state-imposed minimum wage or a minimum wage that is lower than $7.25 an hour, the federal minimum, according to the department.
Dan Sullivan of Petersburg (left) filed to run against Republican incumbent U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan. (Campaign photo by Dan Sullivan and photo of the senator by Corinne Smith/Alaska Beacon)
An Anchorage judge heard oral arguments on Thursday in a case poised to decide whether the Alaska Division of Elections has the authority to remove a candidate with the same name as the incumbent from the race for U.S. Senate.
The court is expediting the case and a decision is expected Friday. Any appeals are expected to be before the Alaska Supreme Court on Monday, ahead of a looming deadline for the division to print primary ballots no later than noon on Tuesday, June 30.
The division made the unprecedented decision to remove Dan J. Sullivan, a retired teacher from Petersburg, from the ballot on June 15, citing a “preponderance of evidence” the candidate had not filed a “good faith candidacy” and filed with the purpose to “confuse or mislead” voters.
Sullivan appealed that decision, saying he meets all eligibility requirements to run for office. He challenged the state’s decision as unlawful, and requested the court overturn the decision and restore his candidacy on the Alaska ballot for U.S. Senate.
In opening arguments, attorneys for the Division of Elections defended the decision to disqualify Sullivan from the ballot. They said the state has a duty to protect voters from confusion, and that the state is not obligated to place a candidate on the ballot where evidence shows t
Sullivan was one of sixteen candidates to file to run for one of Alaska’s U.S. Senate seats, challenging Republican incumbent U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan in the high-stakes election that could determine the control of the U.S. Senate after the November elections. One candidate has withdrawn since then, leaving 14 challengers, including former Democratic U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola. The November election results will determine a candidate for a six-year term.
Critics of Sullivan said he was trying to confuse voters to the benefit of Peltola, the Democratic front-runner. Officials with the Peltola campaign and the Alaska Democratic Party have said they have no affiliation with either Sullivan.
Attorneys representing the Petersburg Sullivan and the Alaska Division of Elections went head to head in livestreamed Superior Court hearing, where over 300 viewers tuned in but others were not able to watch the stream. Officials with the court later apologized calling it a “record-breaking” livestream and posted a recording on their website.
Jeffrey Robinson, representing Sullivan, opened his argument reiterating that Sullivan met all the constitutional requirements to run for office: at least 30 years old, a U.S. citizen, and an inhabitant of Alaska if and when elected.
Jeffrey Robinson, an attorney for Dan J. Sullivan, argues his appeal case in Anchorage Superior Court on June 25, 2026. (Screenshot of court livestream)
“Mr. Sullivan unambiguously meets each of these criteria,” Robinson said. “As seen in previous cases, states are not allowed to add to those qualifications.”
He cited the case where the Alaska Democratic Party sought to remove Eric Hafner, a U.S. House candidate imprisoned out of state, and the division did not investigate his motives but found he met the qualifications to run for office. Robinson argued the state has subjectively and unlawfully added additional criteria for Sullivan, including restrictions on his perceived political goals, how he presents his name, campaign and his party affiliation.
“Here the division imposed a substantive mental state-based qualification for U.S. Senate candidates in Alaska, and then it cynically and arbitrarily determined that Mr. Sullivan did not meet that qualification,” he said.
Robinson said it’s up to political campaigns to distinguish candidates and educate voters. He agreed the division has the authority to make sure candidates appearing on the ballot do not confuse voters, and noted that there are state regulations that offer solutions, like adding middle initials. But he said there are no “good faith” requirements, nor any other regulations that would give the division such broad authority to look at a candidate’s motives for office.
“They have no explicit authority in situations like this to even look into a candidate’s motives. Any subjective standard for candidates imposed by the division necessarily erodes the trust of voters,” he said. “If this standard were to apply, the director could challenge any or disqualify any potential reasons of personal dislike, or that the candidate may lose to their preferred candidate.”
Arguing for the Division of Elections, attorney Chris Murray said the division has the authority to review candidates and make sure the ballot is not presented in a way that would be confusing to voters.
Chris Murray, an attorney for the Alaska Division of Elections, argues against the appeal of Dan J. Sullivan in Anchorage Superior Court on June 25, 2026. (Screenshot of court livestream)
In this case, he said the division director, Carol Beecher, reviewed complaints against the candidate filed by the Alaska Republican Party and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which works to elect Republicans, that say his name, party affiliation and campaign materials mimic the incumbent’s. Murray said Beecher found that Sullivan “accentuated the similarity” between himself and Sen. Sullivan.
“She was stuck with the preponderance of the evidence pointing to this being a declaration of candidacy filed for the purpose of seeking office, but a declaration of candidacy filed for an ulterior purpose to cause voter confusion,” he said. “The director does not have the ability to permit that.”
Murray said in the Hafner case, there was no complaint filed prior to the primary on Hafner’s candidacy. He said the division has authority to review complaints and determine whether candidates made a “proper filing” before the primary, which they did for Sullivan.
“So where’s the line? The line is: the decision on qualification has to be made before somebody is placed onto the primary ballot, that is where Alaska law, that’s where the ‘properly filed’ comes in, that’s when there’s discretion in the Division of Elections — but that’s when the Division of Election decides who goes on the ballot, it’s before the primary election, that case was after the primary election,” he said.
Judge Thomas Matthews asked Murray how the division would handle the situation of three Dan Sullivans, in a hypothetical situation where a former Anchorage mayor, Dan A. Sullivan decided to enter the U.S. Senate race.
Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews presides over the appeal case brought by Dan J. Sullivan challenging the Division of Elections decision to disqualify him for running for U.S. Senate on June 25, 2026. (Screenshot of court livestream)
Murray said a “genuine candidate” would seek to distinguish himself from other candidates, and the division could use a middle initial or notation like “challenger” or “nonincumbent” on the ballot.
“I would say that if you were dealing with all of them, and all of them were trying to get on the ballot in order to win, I think they would all be cooperatively participating in a process where they could be effectively distinguished from each other, so as to avoid voter confusion. That’s not what we have here,” he said.
Judge Matthews asked if there was a way to effectively distinguish the two Dan Sullivans.
Murray said he did not believe that is the division’s responsibility if the candidate’s goal is to confuse voters. “Where the confusion is the goal, Your Honor, we don’t believe the division is under an obligation to try and mitigate it or accommodate it,” he said. “The court could order that the division implement some method to distinguish him, and I’ll say right now, we don’t think a middle initial is sufficient.”
Murray also argued the court ruling would be an important precedent for the division to administer elections.
“If this decision is not affirmed, and it turns out that the court holds that Alaska is just simply powerless, and the division is powerless to stop this sort of behavior, we’re going to be inviting more of this,” he said.
Judge Matthews said he will announce a ruling by Friday, and it could be after business hours.
Attorneys for Sullivan also filed a stay with the court to delay the division printing primary ballots until a final decision is ruled on by the courts. Matthews said he would consider the petition.
After the ruling, both parties are expected to appeal before the Alaska Supreme Court on Monday.
Gov. Mike Dunleavy speaks to reporters at a news conference in Juneau on June 19, 2026. (Photo by Claire Stremple/Alaska Beacon)
Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy canceled funding increases for a variety of state health and education programs on Wednesday, vetoing a combined $57.8 million in general-purpose money from state budget bills passed by the Legislature.
Under the Alaska Constitution, the governor has the ability to eliminate or reduce individual line items from the budget. Dunleavy struck $20 million in extra funding for cities and boroughs, $11.25 million to increase Medicaid payments to health care providers, $6.4 million to help child care centers find workers, $2 million for the state’s seafood marketing program, $3 million for tourism marketing, and more.
The governor did not veto most of a $300 million one-time bonus that lawmakers approved for Alaska’s public schools. He did cancel $3.7 million for Head Start grants, not quite a fifth of the proposed grant budget, and funding for a proposed public education spending adequacy study.
The governor’s vetoes were spread across the state’s operating budget, capital budget and mental health budget, the three bills that determine funding for state services in the fiscal year that starts July 1 and ends June 30, 2027.
It is the lowest amount of vetoes of any year in Dunleavy’s tenure. Last year, the governor initially vetoed a higher amount, but it was reduced after a successful veto override by lawmakers.
Altogether, Alaska will spend about $6.6 billion in general-purpose money during FY27, a figure that’s up by almost $600 million from the budget approved in spring 2025, according to figures published Wednesday by the Office of Management and Budget.
While high oil prices brought in more revenue than anticipated, they also burdened state agencies, local government and school districts with extra costs.
In response, Dunleavy said, the approved budget includes some extra funding for school districts around the state that are coping with high energy costs.
“While the state realized additional revenue, those same price pressures placed a real burden on school districts, particularly in rural Alaska. This budget makes targeted, responsible use of a temporary revenue increase to stabilize school facilities and address energy costs,” he said in a statement.
Earlier this year, legislators and the governor enacted a supplemental budget bill that added hundreds of millions in general-purpose spending to the FY26 budget; the FY27 supplemental will not be decided until next spring.
When federal funding and fee-funded programs are included, the FY27 budget totals about $16.4 billion, including $782 million earmarked for the Permanent Fund dividend. Overall spending is up by about $1.2 billion from last spring.
Entering the year, Dunleavy proposed to spend more than $1.5 billion from state savings accounts in order to pay a Permanent Fund dividend estimated at about $3,800 per recipient.
Legislators turned down that proposal, ultimately deciding on a $1,200 payment that includes a $1,000 dividend and a $200 one-time bonus.
Lawmakers avoided spending from savings altogether because the Iran War increased North Slope oil prices in March.
Those high prices caused Alaskans to pay more individually, but they also generated hundreds of millions of dollars in extra revenue for the state treasury.
The Alaska State Capitol in downtown Juneau.
(Photo by Greg Knight/News of the North)
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
The Alaska State Capitol in downtown Juneau. (Photo by Greg Knight/News of the North)
Under a new law, Alaska boroughs and cities will be able to offer property tax breaks to first-time homebuyers, new trailer parks and homeowners who convert short-term rentals into long-term rentals.
Those breaks and more are included in House Bill 13, which became law this week after Gov. Mike Dunleavy declined to veto it. Eight other bills also became law without the governor’s signature.
and expand the state’s agricultural tax credit to non-food growers like flower farms and hay farms (but not marijuana), as well as farmers who are registered as S corporations.
The largest of the new laws, House Bill 110, was written by Rep. Andrew Gray, D-Anchorage, to include a licensing compact that allows out-of-state social workers to practice in Alaska and meet a demand for services.
In the Senate, it was amended with four other licensing compacts — ones covering psychologists, physician assistants, doctors and emergency medical service workers. Under the terms of these multi-state compacts, someone who is licensed in one compact state can practice in other states.
The compacts give Alaska a bonus in the scoring for grants offered under a new multibillion-dollar federal program, but they could reduce the number of practitioners who live in Alaska year-round because they would more easily allow people to live outside Alaska but work here.
A similar nursing compact failed to pass the Legislature this year.
The pace of gubernatorial action is unusually fast and concentrated this year.
Legislators are meeting in special session, and under the Alaska Constitution, the governor has “fifteen days, Sundays excepted” to act on a bill if it is sent to him while the Legislature is in session.
In addition, lawmakers have deliberately transmitted bills to the governor on a concentrated schedule that would allow them to hold veto override votes during the special session.
The bills approved Monday include six from the House and three from the Senate.
The Senate bills were not due back until Thursday, but the governor sent letters to the Senate Secretary’s office saying that he will allow them to become law without his signature.
Members of the Senate Finance Committee convene on the first day of a special legislative session on the proposed LNG gas line project on May 27, 2026. (Photo by Corinne Smith/Alaska Beacon)
Now, a newly revealed draft of the agreement between the state-owned Alaska Gasline Development Corp. and Glenfarne, the private developer, shows that if the project fails to go forward under certain conditions, the state could be required to pay in order to retake control of the project.
The contract between AGDC and Glenfarne has never been published and remains confidential, but a handful of state senators obtained a leaked draft copy during debates over the size and scope of a $16 billion tax break intended to benefit the pipeline project.
The draft offers the best glimpse to date about the relationship between the state-owned AGDC and Glenfarne, which together are pursuing a multibillion-dollar effort to sell natural gas from the North Slope.
“It’s a significant document. It should be taken seriously,” said Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka.
As legislators debated the bill containing the tax break this month, the leaked document inspired some members of the Senate to amend the legislation. Meanwhile, the document stayed secret from other senators, members of the House and Alaskans overall.
Gov. Mike Dunleavy and members of the House criticized the Senate’s version of the tax-break bill, calling it unacceptable. The governor and House lawmakers said they prefer a separate version passed by the House.
“I don’t know how the document got out to people that it got out to, but somehow it did, and quite frankly, thank God it did,” said Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage.
When the Beacon asked AGDC and Glenfarne about the document and its contents, each said they are bound by a confidentiality rule and cannot discuss them.
“We believe Glenfarne can deliver something enormously important for the state: reliable and affordable energy, thousands of jobs, and the opportunity to finally unlock the value of North Slope natural gas for future generations of Alaskans,” said Tim Fitzpatrick, a spokesman for Glenfarne, by email. “Business documents are protected as a matter of ethical and good faith principles. For that reason, rather than any document specifics, the inappropriate distribution of draft AGDC materials is very disappointing.”
With the House and Senate having passed different versions of the tax-break legislation, lawmakers are negotiating a compromise that could come as early as the first week of July and as late as never.
If the bill advances, the protections inspired by the leaked document could be preserved, diluted or removed entirely.
“The structure of the state’s agreements that could leave Alaskans paying for something is something Alaskans should know,” said Sen. Jesse Kiehl, D-Juneau.
“I’m worried, and I don’t have full information, so we’re doing the best we possibly can,” he said.
Details of the confidential document
The document obtained by the senators dates from a key point in the pipeline project’s history.
That timing indicates the draft obtained by lawmakers and the Beacon was written relatively late in the process and may be close to the final version.
“My impression is that it is a highly refined draft,” Stedman said.
By email, AGDC president Frank Richards said it was written by an AGDC staff member for the corporation’s board of directors.
“The document you reference is a confidential memorandum meant for use by the AGDC Board to make an informed decision on a significant business partnership to move the Alaska LNG Project forward. Alaska LNG has made historic progress in the past fourteen months and development momentum continues,” he wrote.
Glenfarne officials have testified that they will allow legislators who sign non-disclosure agreements to examine financial documents. Members of the Senate Finance Committee have said in hearings that they are unwilling to accept that precondition.
“AGDC has identified that Alaska’s oil and gas property taxes are very high compared to other jurisdictions where LNG facilities are built and need to be lowered to help the Alaska LNG Project be competitive to attract capital investment and achieve (final investment decision),” he wrote.
With an officially estimated construction price of between $44.5 billion and $54.5 billion, the project — formally named Alaska LNG or AKLNG — would be one of the largest natural gas projects on Earth.
Under current law, Alaska would levy a 2% property tax on that project when it finishes construction. Legislators are considering whether to replace that tax with a tax on natural gas pumped through the pipeline. The resulting tax break would be worth about $16 billion over the project’s first 30 years of operation.
Alaska would still receive royalties and production taxes from natural gas sold through the pipeline, and it would receive assorted other fees as well, such as the proceeds of carbon dioxide sequestration.
Altogether, the state treasury stands to earn as much as $800 million per year for 30 years. That’s on top of the economic benefits caused by having thousands of extra workers in the state to build the pipeline, and potentially cheaper natural gas for residents and local industries.
As explained in public and in the confidential document, AKLNG would be built in two phases. The first phase would include a “764-mile, 42-inch-diameter pipeline” from the North Slope “into the Southcentral Alaska gas pipeline system.”
Coupled with a small gas treatment facility on the North Slope, that first phase would provide gas for in-state use by Alaskans.
Because the pipeline will not be built before Southcentral Alaska begins running out of gas, the confidential agreement also calls for AGDC and Glenfarne to build a gas import facility together.
Once the pipeline is operating, the partnership would use that equipment for exports.
The second phase would involve connecting the pipeline to the Prudhoe Bay and Point Thomson oil and gas fields, plus construction of a larger gas treatment facility and a liquefied natural gas export facility on the Kenai Peninsula “capable of (exporting) up to 20 million tons per annum.”
The pipeline, North Slope facility and Kenai Peninsula facility are each considered “sub projects” under the agreement between AGDC and Glenfarne.
“Glenfarne will negotiate contracts for construction, equipment, materials, and gas supply,” the document states. “No projects can create an obligation for AGDC or the State of Alaska without prior approval by AGDC or the State of Alaska, respectively.”
Currently, lawmakers are considering whether to restrict AGDC’s ability to borrow money without input from the Legislature. The House version of the tax-break bill would allow AGDC to borrow without permission, but lawmakers could halt the borrowing. The Senate version would require AGDC to ask permission first.
When AGDC and Glenfarne reach a final investment decision — a last decision on whether to build at all — there will be new development agreements that determine the ownership of each subproject.
Ownership would be split among any investors, AGDC and Glenfarne.
In presentations to the Legislature, AGDC officials explained that while the state currently owns 25% of the project, that share will be diluted on each subproject as investors are brought on board. The state will only keep its 25% share if it invests more money.
The confidential draft agreement says Glenfarne must reach “clawback milestones” to continually prove that it is operating in good faith.
If AGDC decides Glenfarne hasn’t met a milestone — such as signing a binding agreement to sell natural gas to a particular customer — it could seek to retake the project. That may require AGDC to pay.
The structure of the state’s agreements that could leave Alaskans paying for something is something Alaskans should know.
– Sen. Jesse Kiehl, D-Juneau
If Glenfarne disputes AGDC’s assessment, the two parties would consult a third party.
AGDC isn’t required to repurchase Glenfarne’s part of the project, but if it does, Glenfarne would be the one proposing the price, “based on the value Glenfarne has added to the company.”
AGDC could dispute that price, and if it does, an “independent investment bank” would determine the final amount.
Senators familiar with the confidential draft said this language was new to them, and they see it as a potential financial liability.
Under the draft agreement, confidentiality is required
“We are trying to craft legislation to protect the state’s interests, and we’ve been put in a position where we have had to guess what is in the contract or not in the contract in order to protect our interests. That is an awful place to be as a state and as a legislature,” Wielechowski said.
Secrecy between Alaska’s state-owned corporations and their investment partners isn’t unprecedented, nor are controversies over that secrecy.
When it comes to the gas pipeline, Glenfarne released an updated estimate for the project’s cost earlier this month, but state lawmakers still don’t have all the financial information they’ve been seeking, including estimates about the project’s profitability.
The confidential draft states that AGDC would share profits with Glenfarne and other partners, but lawmakers don’t know what that share would be or how the project’s economics would change under the tax break being discussed by legislators.
The Alaska Department of Revenue has provided public estimates, but Glenfarne and AGDC have not.
“On the whole, it gets down to the level of information that we need to make good decisions, and we have a little bit more than we had when the bill came out of the House, but we are still pretty short,” said Sen. Jesse Kiehl, D-Juneau and one of the lawmakers who had access to the document.
How we reported this article
The Beacon obtained the draft agreement discussed in this article on Friday from a source who does not work for the Legislature and was able to compare it with a separate paper copy the following day.
The text of the copies was identical, though the paper copy — used by a senator — had its control number and other identifying information clipped out. The senator said they would be shredding their copy after the examination.
We do not know who originally leaked the document, whether there were multiple leakers, or why they shared the document.
After verifying the document, the Beacon called and emailed Glenfarne on Monday about its contents and sent a list of questions by email when asked to do so.
AGDC’s Frank Richards responded by email. Glenfarne officials spoke on the phone but were not willing to be quoted directly, and provided a written statement.
Richards asked for a copy of the “document or documents” the Beacon had. The Beacon declined to send that document — and we are declining to post it in this article — because even with control numbers and other identifying information redacted, it could still contain language that would allow the source to be identified.
The Beacon did not receive answers to all of its questions, including details about how much has been spent on the project to date and possible partnerships with companies mentioned in the draft agreement.
Lawmakers have concerns over the clawback
Senators familiar with the confidential agreement said they don’t recall when they first received it, in part because they initially overlooked its importance.
Sen. Cathy Giessel, R-Anchorage, said she became aware of the draft when her aide, Paige Brown, read through it.
“It wasn’t actually until the last couple weeks that … I found it in a pile of my desk and said, “‘Paige, look this over, I think there might be some stuff in here,’ and she started flagging sections, and we started looking at it more closely,” Giessel said.
Stedman said that when he first saw the document, “I was struggling, quite frankly, on how to handle it.”
He briefly considered releasing it to the general public.
“I actually thought about putting it on the table, and I didn’t do it … because it’s marked confidential. It’s highly sensitive,” he said.
The clawback section drew senators’ attention. Members of the Senate majority have been openly concerned about the risks to the state if the project doesn’t go forward or is only partially built.
In a Senate Finance hearing on June 16, members of the Senate Finance Committee grilled AGDC consultant Matt Kissinger and Glenfarne Alaska president Adam Prestidge with questions drawn from the draft.
“There is no scenario where we will ask the state for money,” Prestidge said under questioning.
The state will be given a chance to invest money in the project, he said, but “even the state investment option is an option to the state that doesn’t come with a formal request or pressure from Glenfarne.”
Prestidge didn’t mention the clawback, so Stedman went a different direction: “Was there preliminary discussions when all this came together, about any exit strategies and purchases, buybacks, any of that stuff?” he asked.
“There is a different provision around making the developer leave, which would require a payment, but as far as the developer quitting themselves and no longer pursuing diligent development efforts, no, there was never even a discussion of a payment in regards to that,” Kissinger said, alluding to the clawback but not explicitly stating it.
Afterward, Stedman said he wasn’t pleased with the answers.
“It’s hard sitting at the table when you knew some of the answers weren’t as direct and accurate as they should be,” he said.
Days later, the Senate rewrote the tax break bill. One of its amendments — adopted by a 14-6 vote, with all members of the majority voting yes — states that if the project does not go forward, the developer must transfer all of the project’s assets back to AGDC within six months “at no cost to the corporation or the state.”
Another amendment, adopted by an identical 14-6 vote, requires AGDC and Glenfarne to report any relationships with foreign companies.
One section of the confidential agreement states that Glenfarne will work with Canadian natural gas firm Enbridge on the proposed import terminal. Another section says Glenfarne will talk with South Korean conglomerate Hanwha Group and Japan’s Inpex about the export terminal.
The document also provided senators with a definition of “final investment decision” as determined by AGDC and Glenfarne.
That mattered, Stedman said, because if legislators used a different definition for that term than AGDC and Glenfarne did, any law covering the term might be ineffective.
Dismay from AGDC’s president
Before the Senate voted on the pipeline tax break, some members of the Senate Majority invited AGDC president Richards into the office of Senate President Gary Stevens, R-Kodiak, and told him what they had.
None of the participants in that meeting were willing to discuss it in depth.
Richards said by email that he was “dismayed” when senators told him last week.
“I think you’ll find AGDC is very concerned about this document,” Stedman said this week, “and potential liability exposure between them and Glenfarne.”
Richards said AGDC’s board is considering an investigation.
“The protection of confidential information is specifically and purposefully allowed in AGDC’s statutes to fulfill the corporation’s mission to deliver North Slope natural gas for the benefit of Alaskans,” he said by email.
While the Capitol has a reputation for information leaks, the text of the document stayed closely held, even as rumors about its existence spread.
I have not liked this process where we are working in the dark and we are not getting information that we need to protect the state’s interests. We are being forced to just guess where the landmines are, guess where the pitfalls are. I don’t like being in that situation at all, and every Alaskan should be concerned about that.
– Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage
Each of the three co-chairs of the House Finance Committee said they had not seen the document. Rep. Neal Foster, D-Nome, said he had heard about it, though.
“I just know there’s something out there, and everybody was kind of getting excited,” he said.
Foster said the document was never discussed in deliberations within the House Finance Committee nor was it discussed among members of the House’s majority coalition.
Sen. James Kaufman, R-Anchorage, and Senate Minority Leader Mike Cronk, R-Tok, are on the Senate Finance Committee and said they had not seen the draft.
Even some Senate majority members said they had not seen it.
“Is that the secret document everyone’s talking about?” said Sen. Kelly Merrick, R-Eagle River, when asked.
“I have not seen that, and I don’t care to see it. I don’t want to be responsible for confidential information,” she said.
Members of the state House and Senate are scheduled to meet July 1 and may consider a compromise tax break on that day.
A preliminary meeting is scheduled for 2 p.m. Friday.
Even if the confidential Glenfarne-AGDC agreement becomes more widely known, senators said lawmakers will be crafting a compromise with incomplete information.
“I have not liked this process where we are working in the dark and we are not getting information that we need to protect the state’s interests,” Wielechowski said. “We are being forced to just guess where the landmines are, guess where the pitfalls are. I don’t like being in that situation at all, and every Alaskan should be concerned about that.”
Members of the Alaska House Judiciary and State Affairs committees held an investigatory hearing on Monday about the state’s decision to remove a candidate from the U.S. Senate election with the same name as the incumbent — Dan Sullivan.
The Division of Elections announced that Dan J. Sullivan, a retired teacher from Petersburg, was not eligible to run for the U.S. Senate. It cited complaints from the incumbent and Republican groups when it decided his candidacy was not in “good faith,” and aimed at confusing voters with the incumbent U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan. The division cited a state regulation that forbids the Division of Elections from listing a candidate’s name “in a manner that is confusing or misleading to voters or compromises the fairness or neutrality of the ballot.”
But some lawmakers questioned the decision and the division’s authority to remove the challenger candidate. An attorney representing the Alaska Legislature issued a legal memo Wednesday saying the decision to disqualify the candidate was likely unlawful, since he did not violate the U.S. Constitution’s qualifications to run for office.
The hearing took place as Dan Sullivan of Petersburg filed an appeal of the state’s decision to disqualify him from the ballot on Monday, taking the issue before a state superior court. In the complaint, Sullivan defended his eligibility and challenged the division’s decision to remove him. He argues the action is unlawful, and is asking the court to overturn the decision and restore his name on the ballot for the August primary.
Lawmakers held a hearing in Anchorage to investigate the division’s decision. Division officials declined to appear so the committee relied on testimony from attorneys.
Judiciary committee chair Rep. Andrew Gray, D-Anchorage, opened Monday’s hearing by saying the issue under scrutiny was not the particular candidate or his motives, but about the limits of the division’s authority and whether that authority is being applied fairly.
“What authority does the Division of Elections have to remove a candidate from the ballot, and has that authority been exercised consistently?” Gray said. “Those questions matter because public confidence in elections depends on more than accurate vote counting. It depends on the public’s confidence that the rules are applied equally to everyone.”
Gray cited a previous case where the candidate’s political motives and eligibility were challenged, but the state took a different stance. When the Alaska Democratic Party sought to remove Eric Hafner, a U.S. House candidate imprisoned out of state, the division defended his right to run for office. The Alaska Supreme Court allowed him to remain on the ballot. Hafner is running for the seat again this year. Gray emphasized the difference in the state’s approach.
“When a government agency departs from positions it has taken in previous cases, the public deserves an explanation,” Gray said. “And when a government agency removes the candidate from the ballot, the public deserves a very clear explanation.”
Lawmakers called the hearing and requested the division director, Carol Beecher, appear and participate in providing further information and an explanation for removing Sullivan. Beecher declined last week, citing the division’s work preparing the ballot scheduled to be printed on June 28.
Legislators then issued a rare legislative subpoena and served Beecher on Sunday to compel her to appear before the committee.
Empty chairs for tesifiers at a June 22, 2026, hearing in Anchorage on candidate qualification. The hearing was held by the House State Affairs and House Judiciary committees. Seated in the background are Rep. Steve St. Clair, R-Wasilla, and Rep. Ky Holland, I-Anchorage. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)
On Monday, Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom, who oversees the state’s election system, issued a letter again declining to appear and threatening legal action.
“If you refuse, we may have no choice but to seek to quash the subpoena in court due to the unreasonable timeframe provided and the lack of urgency while the appeal period is still pending,” Dahlstrom wrote.
Gray noted that division officials gave Sullivan of Petersburg only one day to respond to questions, and then removed him from the ballot four days later. He announced at the hearing that they had rescinded the subpoena and agreed that elections officials would participate in another investigative hearing scheduled for July 22.
On Monday, the committee heard from several attorneys with experience working on elections issues, including Andrew Dunmire, a legislative attorney who wrote a legal memo saying the division’s actions were likely unconstitutional.
Dunmire wrote that under the U.S. Constitution, there are three qualifications for federal candidates: they must be at least 30 years old, a U.S. citizen for at least nine years and an inhabitant of the state when elected. He said, as seen in previous cases, states are not allowed to add to those qualifications.
“The US Constitution is the supreme source of law in our country, and there’s no administrative regulation that can override a constitutional requirement,” he said.
Lawmakers discussed the state regulation cited by elections officials which prohibits the division from placing names on the ballot “in a manner that is confusing or misleading to voters or compromises the fairness or neutrality of the ballot.”
Several Republican members of the committee defended the division’s actions, including Rep. Mia Costello, R-Anchorage, who said the division has a responsibility to protect the ballot from confusing or misleading voters.
“The division does have a responsibility to determine whether or not the voters are being misled, whether it has to do with how long they’ve lived here, whether it has to do with their name,” Costello said, and questioned whether Sullivan’s motives should be further investigated by the U.S Department of Justice or the Federal Elections Commission.
“I hope that this issue is resolved, so that anybody who wants to run for office in the state of Alaska can do it, but they cannot do it in a manner that is going to confuse or undermine the importance of elections,” she said.
But Dunmire, with Legislative Legal Services, said while the state can investigate allegations of campaign misconduct, the division has no authority to investigate a candidate’s motives in running for office.
“It is not the division’s role, they have no explicit authority in situations like this to look into a candidate’s motivations,” he said.
Dunmire noted state regulation has rules for when two candidates with the same name appear on the ballot. Candidates’ names would appear with a middle initial, in this case the challenger as “Dan J. Sullivan,” and the incumbent as “Dan S. Sullivan.”
Hollis French, a former state senator and prosecutor, was invited to testify before the committee and did not mince words.
“I don’t think you would need any special legal training to smell a rat here,” French said. “If a prisoner with no ties to the state of Alaska in New York state can be put on the ballot for federal office in the state of Alaska, I think the Division of Elections is sort of foreclosed from then on, from engaging in what they’ve engaged in this case.”
French said as a prosecutor, it’s nearly impossible to prove someone’s motives. He emphasized the division can take steps to distinguish the two names on the ballot, and then it’s up to candidates to campaign and appeal to voters.
“There’s a way to designate that in a neutral manner on the ballot, and then put the burden on the candidates to remind everybody that they’re the Dan Sullivan from Fairbanks or the Dan Sullivan with an S, or the Dan Sullivan with a J,” he said.
Rep. Ashley Carrick, D-Fairbanks and chair of the House State Affairs Committee, said she was highly concerned about a subjective standard for candidates imposed by the division that may erode the trust of voters.
“I think there’s a clear risk in the longer term future to the Division of Elections and Alaska’s election integrity if we see mistakes or differences of opinion in how this authority to investigate can be utilized,” she said.
“And really, truly, my biggest concern here is that if ‘good faith,’ as was stated in the memo from the Division of Elections, becomes an additional implicit standard for candidacy, Alaska will have added more than just an additional requirement. We will have functionally added a subjective standard for qualification to run for office.”
Demonstrators gathered outside the Alaska Division of Elections in Downtown Juneau and broadcast the House Judiciary Committee’s hearing in protest of the decision to remove a candidate from the ballot they said was an abuse of power and compromising election integrity on June 22, 2026. (Photo by Corinne Smith/Alaska Beacon)
This eight-plex apartment complex in Juneau, seen Thursday, June 18, 2026, will be purchased by the Juneau Community Foundation and donated to the Alaska Legislature under a plan approved Wednesday by lawmakers. (Claire Stremple photo/Alaska Beacon)
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
This eight-plex apartment complex in Juneau, seen Thursday, June 18, 2026, will be purchased by the Juneau Community Foundation and donated to the Alaska Legislature under a plan approved Wednesday by lawmakers. (Claire Stremple photo/Alaska Beacon)
The Juneau Community Foundation is giving the Alaska Legislature 16 two-bedroom apartments as part of a long-term effort to keep the state’s capital in Juneau.
Members of the House-Senate Legislative Council voted unanimously to accept the apartments, which are spread across two four-plexes and one eight-plex in the Starr Hill and Chicken Ridge neighborhoods, respectively.
The new acquisition follows the Legislature’s acceptance of the Assembly Building by a similar donation in 2022. That building has 33 apartments for legislators and is regularly in use.
Under the terms of the donation, the Juneau Community Foundation will buy the three new buildings, renovate them and turn them over to the Legislature once the renovations are complete.
Fifty-seven of the Legislature’s 60 members do not live permanently in Juneau; there will be 49 legislative housing units when the renovations finish.
Reed Stoops, a lobbyist, is a member of the board of the Juneau Community Foundation and helped organize the latest housing donation.
“Basically any kind of improvement that will make the Legislature function better in Juneau, we’ll do,” he said.
The ultimate goal is to give the Legislature more housing options to keep legislative sessions in Juneau, “especially during a special session like this,” he said.
Juneau is visited by more than 1.5 million tourists per year in the summer, and housing becomes scarce between April and September. Historically, legislators and staff have struggled to find housing for special sessions that take place during the summer.
The Legislature hasn’t yet decided how much rent it will charge legislators who live in the new apartments. Legislators living in the Assembly Building are charged market-rate rents based on the size of the apartment.
“Many on this council are strongly supportive and excited about Juneau Community Foundation’s donation, and just really thankful for it,” said Rep. Ashley Carrick, D-Fairbanks and a member of the Legislative Council.
“Juneau is an incredibly welcoming community, and this is just yet another example of why we should keep the capital in Juneau,” she said.
