Category: Featured Juneau News

By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon

After two southeast Alaska Republicans reversed themselves, the Alaska Legislature on Monday failed to override Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s veto of an elections bill intended to take effect this year.

Forty votes were needed to override the veto. Monday’s vote was 38-22, with Rep. Jeremy Bynum, R-Ketchikan, and Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka, providing the critical votes to sustain the veto. Both previously voted to pass Senate Bill 64 and send it to the governor.

Each said after Monday’s vote that they did not believe state officials would be able to implement the bill in time for this year’s elections.

As written, SB 64 contained a swath of changes to state law that were intended to make it easier for Alaskans to vote and to improve the security of state elections.

Among the proposed modifications: Free postage for absentee ballots, a new system for absentee voters to track their ballots through the counting process, a 10-day period for absentee voters to fix problems that disqualified their ballots, updated procedures for auditing the state’s voter list to remove ineligible people, a requirement that the financial backers of ballot measures disclose their identities and a special liaison intended to fix widespread voting problems in rural Alaska.

Dunleavy vetoed the bill on Thursday. In his veto message to the Legislature, he wrote, “the Division of Elections warns such changes would be extremely difficult if not impossible, to implement securely and reliably in advance of the 2026 elections.”

Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage, supported the bill and the override. Speaking ahead of the vote, he said that in 2022, during a special election held after the death of Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, the state was able to implement a ballot-tracking system within six weeks.

“I’m not prepared to tell Alaskans, ‘Sorry, it’ll have to wait another year. It’s just too hard,’” Wielechowski said.

But Bynum said afterward that he was swayed by statements from the Division of Elections, which said it was uncertain about its ability to implement the system so quickly this year.

“I can’t speak to what they may or may not have done in 2022. I can only speak to what the Division of Elections is telling me today. And what they told me is that this timeline is too aggressive for them to effectively put this in the law,” he said.

Bynum said another factor in his vote was the use of tribal IDs by voters at the polls. SB 64 would have mandated the state to accept their use as voter ID. Bynum said that until the past week, he was unaware that tribal IDs could already be used as a matter of policy.

Bynum said the vote was a difficult one for him and that if the bill had taken effect Jan. 1, he would have voted for it.

Stedman was one of the last legislators to vote, and his opposition was significantly less important because Bynum’s decision had already sustained the veto.

“I think they need more time to implement it. That was it, pretty much. I think there’s a lot of good work in this bill and a lot of positive things, but it just needs a little more time,” he said while walking away from Monday’s joint session.

In March, the House voted 23-16 on March 23 to pass the bill. Rep. Ashley Carrick, D-Fairbanks, was excused absent from that vote but later expressed her support. Two days later, the Senate voted 16-4 to approve the House’s changes and send the bill to Dunleavy.

The veto of SB 64 was Dunleavy’s 10th in the two-year 34th Alaska State Legislature. While prior governors have vetoed more bills during a single Legislature, this Legislature has passed relatively few bills, and Dunleavy has vetoed bills at a higher rate than any previous governor.

Legislators overrode two of Dunleavy’s 10 vetoes. Two others, in addition to SB 64, saw override votes fail. The remaining five were never brought up for an override vote despite opportunities to do so.

The veto means a sixth consecutive year will pass without a significant update to the state’s election system. Bipartisan bills failed in 2022, 2024 and now 2026.

This year’s bill appeared to have the most likelihood of success — it was endorsed by Reps. Sarah Vance, R-Homer, and Kevin McCabe, R-Big Lake, two of the most politically conservative members of the state House, and it had support from House and Senate progressives.

The Alaska Federation of Natives issued a statement urging legislators to support an override, as did other groups.

But many Republicans opposed the changes because they wanted a more rigorous cull of the state’s voter list and oppose easier access to absentee voting.

Ahead of the final vote, Republican writer Suzanne Downing lambasted the bill, as did other socially conservative commentators.

Vance, speaking Monday to the Legislature, said she received “threats” and “bullying” because of her support of the bill and an override. 

After the vote, she said “there has been slander and an all-out assault to discredit and, frankly, lie to the people about what this bill does.” 

Asked whether she was referring to Downing and her website, which has published a series of articles against the bill, she said, “Very clearly — intentionally misleading the people about what’s actually in the bill, what it does, and claiming that I’m no longer a conservative.”

One of the articles was from Rep. Rebecca Schwanke, R-Glennallen, who urged Dunleavy to veto the bill and on Monday asked legislators to sustain the governor’s decision.

Speaking on the floor, she said rural voters in her district need more than 10 days to fix problems that might have disqualified their absentee ballot.

Sen. Mike Cronk, R-Tok, represents Schwanke’s district and another Fairbanks-area House district. He was in favor of the override.

“If I lose an election because a little old lady in Arctic Village had to cure her ballot and have that one ballot cost me my election, so be it,” he said. “Aren’t we here to make sure every vote counts?”

By: Corinne Smith, Alaska Beacon

State lawmakers raised concerns in a series of legislative hearings while they considered the confirmation of Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s attorney general designee Stephen Cox. At issue were controversial legal actions Cox took in his first eight months in office.

Cox is an attorney and has served in various roles in federal law enforcement, including as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Texas and other roles in the U.S. Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, as well as in private industry in Texas and Alaska, according to his resume. Cox is a member of the Federalist Society, a national conservative and libertarian legal organization. Prior to being appointed, he worked as legal counsel for Bristol Bay Industrial, LLC, a holding company and investment subsidiary of the Bristol Bay Native Corporation, since 2021. 

Dunleavy appointed Cox to the Attorney General’s office in August, after Treg Taylor resigned to run for governor. Cox appeared before lawmakers in Senate and House confirmation committees ahead of a joint session to vote on his appointment next week. 

While in Alaska’s top legal post, Cox has taken several controversial actions lawmakers questioned. He defended handing over Alaska’s private voter information at the request of the U.S. Department of Justice, which has prompted a lawsuit by civil rights groups. Cox and the Alaska Department of Law also joined over 110 amicus briefs, or “friends of the court briefs” on a wide variety of federal and state cases, including U.S. Supreme Court cases.

Some lawmakers raised concerns that Cox has taken legal positions with amicus briefs that were highly politicized, aligned with the Trump administration and in some cases contrary to Alaska law and unrelated to Alaskans interests.

That included joining Alaska in cases opposing birthright citizenship, supporting a Christian baker declining to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, and supporting the most recent case where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana’s congressional maps cannot be drawn based on race — a decision critics say effectively limits the Voting Rights Act.

Senate President Gary Stevens, R-Kodiak, asked why Cox had signed Alaska on to challenge birthright citizenship, which the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to decide in June. Stevens became emotional, saying it was a fundamental value to provide refuge to people fleeing war and poverty, or seeking better opportunities — like his own ancestors who escaped the Irish famine. 

“It just baffles me. How can you or your department or anyone in the administration argue against birthright citizenship? It’s in our Constitution. It’s a moral issue,” Stevens said.

Cox said he believes that birthright citizenship should not be granted for children of those visiting or temporarily in the United States, but only for those who intend to stay. 

“My view of the Constitution under the 14th Amendment is that it is not simply birth on the territory, that you also have to be not subject to the foreign jurisdiction, and that there has to be some kind of allegiance,” Cox replied.

“But I also recognize, like everything, I could be wrong,” he added. “But again, we will hear what the US Supreme Court decides on that issue.” 

Lawmakers in the Senate Judiciary and State Affairs Committees pressed Cox on his reason for signing on to cases that they said would be contrary to Alaskan’s interests.

Sen. Matt Claman, D-Anchorage, asked if Cox would sign on to cases challenging abortion rights in another state, while Alaska’s Constitution protects the right to abortion within the right to privacy. 

“What is your perspective with respect to filing amicus briefs and requests for amicus briefs regarding the right to abortion, that the courts have found is specifically protected in Alaska?” Claman asked.

After several minutes of back and forth, Cox finally said he would have to consider the specific case and consult with the governor.

“I would look hard at the law. I would consult the experts within the Department of Law. I would get their expertise. If I felt that the state of Alaska did not have an interest, I wouldn’t bring it,” he said. “If I thought that there was an interest in that the state of Alaska did have, notwithstanding what the Alaska Supreme Court has ruled in in its prior cases, I would have a conversation with the governor.”

Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage, questioned Cox on why he didn’t oppose a lawsuit before the U.S. Supreme Court that would require mail-in ballots to be received by Election Day, which would be a challenge for many rural Alaska precincts. Alaska law currently allows ballots to be received within 10 days, or 15 days if mailed overseas.

“Why didn’t you stand up for Alaska and say to the court: this is a bad law for Alaska. We want you to strike this down. We want you to say no to this,” Wielechowski said. 

Cox defended the decision to submit an amicus brief declaring no support for either party as a “strategic choice.” 

“I actually like briefs in support of neither party that are very fact-based. And I think, and again, I realize people might disagree, but I think sometimes they get noticed the most, but that was a strategic choice,” he said.

Lawmakers also questioned the time and resources expended by the Alaska Department of Law on amicus briefs, versus prosecutions and law enforcement in Alaska. “Why would we spend that money when we have this crisis on domestic violence and sexual assault, when that money is better spent on prosecution in state?” Claman asked. 

Cox defended the initiative, and the creation of a new Alaska State Solicitor General role focused on multistate litigation in October. He said his goal in office is to pursue more amicus briefs. 

“Going forward, I’d like Alaska to take more of a leadership role, offering more of our own briefs, and shaping the arguments directly, as opposed to just being a joiner,” he told lawmakers.  

Senators question Cox on sharing confidential voter information

Several senators questioned Cox on his role in the Dunleavy’s administration’s decision to share confidential voter information at the request of the U.S. Department of Justice last year. Critics and plaintiffs in new lawsuit against the state say the sharing of voter information — including full name, birth dates and partial social security numbers — was a violation of voters’ privacy. The state also signed an agreement to remove voters the DOJ flags as ineligible.

Cox said he believed the request was lawful, and noted the federal government had threatened to sue. 

“One, was there a statute that authorized disclosure of confidential information? There was, for lawful government purposes,” Cox said. “And two, we took the posture of cooperation. Alaska has a long standing history of cooperating with the U.S. Department (of Justice) Civil Rights Division.”

“And I will be candid with you,” he added. “I have a disposition of cooperating with law enforcement.”

Sen. Scott Kawasaki, D-Fairbanks, pressed Cox on the decision to share the voter information, which he and other lawmakers stressed is protected by Alaska’s Constitution.

“The state also has a constitutional right of privacy. It’s one of the, I think, bedrocks and one of the most important things I think some people recognize in the state constitution,” Kawasaki said. “Why was that not your first thought, is that Alaska has got a constitutional right to privacy. Let’s take a pause before we do anything more that the Department of Justice has requested?”

Cox defended the decision as lawful: “I will concede I am learning about the right to privacy. And the Legislature has far better expertise on the right to privacy,” Cox said. “And the law department’s position is that that statute is a valid statute and that it is not unconstitutional.”

Sen. Jesse Bjorkman, R-Kenai, also questioned the purpose of sharing Alaska’s voter information, which Cox defended as under “lawful government purpose” in the agreement. But Bjorkman raised doubts that the reasons the federal government may deem voters to be ineligible is clear. 

“If we are releasing the data for a lawful purpose, but we can’t positively identify what the purpose is, and then judge that according to whether or not it is indeed lawful,” Bjorkman said. “I have a concern about that.”

Cox outlines AG office priorities

Cox told lawmakers that while in the Attorney General’s office his priorities include a new “quality of life” initiative working with the municipality of Anchorage to prosecute retail theft and public disorder infractions. 

“We’ve cross-designated prosecutors so that state and municipal attorneys can use each other’s authorities. We’re looking at civil tools like abatement actions to go after drug houses or even using data from retailers to identify patterns and repeat offenders,” he said.

Cox said prosecuting violent crime like domestic violence and sexual assault is always the No. 1 priority of the office, and added he’s focused on resource development and consumer protection as well. 

“Alaska has some of the strongest consumer protection laws in the country, and I think we can be enforcing them more aggressively,” he said. 

“At bottom, this job is about the rule of law, what the law requires, how it is applied and how we exercise the state’s power within those limits. I’ve spent much of my career in law enforcement settings where the stakes are real. Decisions affect liberty, public safety and public trust. That experience shapes how I approach this office,” he said.

Cox is scheduled to appear before the House Judiciary Committee on Monday. A joint session on state appointments was scheduled for May 7 but was postponed and likely will be set for early next week. 

By: Corinne Smith, Alaska Beacon

Members of the Alaska Senate voted to approve a long-awaited pension bill on Tuesday, amid debate on the cost of the new public retirement benefits system and responsibilities of the state and local community employers.

The Senate passed a revised version of a pension plan approved by the House last year. The vote was 12 to 8. Twenty years after lawmakers eliminated a public pension system, the vote marks the closest lawmakers have come to restoring a defined retirement benefit for thousands of Alaska’s public sector employees.

“It strikes me as a historic day,” said Sen. Cathy Giessel, R-Anchorage, after the vote. She has been working on the issue for several years. “When you figure 33 different offerings to correct this over the years — yeah, we’ve been trying for a long time.”

If enacted, the bill would reinstate a defined benefit retirement system for Alaska state employees, as well as teachers, public safety workers and municipal employees statewide. 

The move comes as the state struggles to fill positions across state departments, including public safety, corrections and in education roles. 

Supporters said the retirement benefit is crucial for hiring and retaining a skilled public sector workforce in Alaska for the long-term, while detractors say the uncertainty around the cost to the state and local municipalities isn’t worth the risk.

Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mike Cronk, R-Tok, said he opposes increasing state spending.

“We look at our federal government, we’re going to be $40 trillion upside down. That’s totally unacceptable,” he added. “And for adding this kind of burden for the future, generated cost is something that I just can’t be a part of. I know we have a problem. I think there are other solutions out there that can help this problem.”

The move was applauded by the state’s largest public employees union, the Alaska State Employees Association, which represents roughly 8,500 public employees.

“The impact is almost difficult to overstate,” said Heidi Drygas, its executive director, by phone on Tuesday. “Our membership overwhelmingly supports a defined benefit pension. And I think this will mean security for them, so that they can feel comfortable staying in their state jobs. It will attract more employees to work for the state.” 

The bill passed the House last May, and the revised version now goes back to the House for a concurrence vote, before heading to Gov. Dunleavy’s desk for consideration. 

The governor has been critical of previous pension proposals. Dunleavy receives a state pension for his previous employment as an educator and superintendent. 

If the bill becomes law, current state employees would be allowed to switch from a defined contribution or a 401(k) style retirement plan to the new system. Retirement for teachers and public employees would be possible at age 60 or any age after 30 years of service. For public safety officers, including police and firefighters, it would be age 50 with 25 years of service, or age 55 with 20 years of service. 

“Every other state offers a pension for at least some of the public servants. We do not,” Giessel said on the Senate floor. “And we are seeing the results. We ask our public employees to do difficult work, often in the hardest conditions. The question is whether we will give them a reason to build a career here.”

After several hours of debate, the Senate approved several amendments, including a change to allow cities and boroughs to choose whether to opt out of the new defined benefit retirement plan, instead of opt in.

“It’s better policy for local governments to follow the state’s lead,” said Sen. Matt Claman, D-Anchorage, who sponsored the provision. “If they don’t like our choice, they’re certainly allowed to make their own choice and opt out, but if they don’t take any action, they’re in.”  

That means local cities and boroughs can choose whether to opt out of the plan, if enacted, between January and June of 2027, and then the new system would begin July 1 next year. 

Under the revised bill, employees would contribute 8% of their pay to the pension plan. Employers would pay up to 22.5% for public sector employees, and up to 12.5% for teachers. Senators debated the cap and arrived at 22.5%, noting municipality officials public testimony and concern about cost. 

Employers would also pay into a health reimbursement fund of up to 4% of workers’ salaries to supplement Medicare for those over age 65. Disability and death benefits would be included.

Senators debate pension plan, Alaska’s workforce challenges

If passed, the bill would revive Alaska’s state pension that was eliminated in 2006, after the state ran into a multi-billion dollar shortfall and unfunded liabilities in the retirement system.

Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka, a co-chair of the Senate Finance Committee, opposed the bill, citing the risk that the state will repeat the mistakes of the early 2000s.

“This proposal in front of us today diminished the benefit to the retired employee when it goes underfunded. Yeah, it won’t go unfunded until people retire. Normally, it takes about 30 years, but we’ve got 20 years already with the current defined contribution. So about 10 years out,” he said. 

A recent estimate by the state’s actuary, Gallagher, projected state costs to total $467 million for the first 13 years, until FY 2039. 

Stedman said the state is also still on the hook to pay billions to account for the old pension system. But Giessel said the new pension system has built in safeguards to prevent it from going underfunded, according to the actuary’s analysis.

“Even with a never before seen ‘black swan’ event of three consecutive years with zero investment returns, even then this pension holds up,” she said. 

Giessel and other lawmakers cited the state’s current ballooning costs paying state employee overtime to cover vacancies and essential public services, called “premium pay.”

“It is costing us over $200 million a year in premium pay,” she said. “Just to keep basic services running — that number has grown nearly 80% in the past five years. We have, in effect, turned Alaska into a training ground, a place where people come, gain experience and then leave.”

Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage, described a crisis of families leaving the state, in part due to a lack of stable retirement. Alaska has seen more than a decade of consistent outmigration, according to state data. 

“There has been a quiet, heavy crisis unfolding all across Alaska, in our schools, in our state office buildings, in our courts, in our communities all across Alaska, it’s the sound of a door slamming shut. Another family packs up to leave,” Wielechowski said on the Senate floor.

“We talk a lot about fiscal responsibility in this chamber, but I ask you, what is responsible about watching our most precious resource, our people walk out the door?”

Supporters of the pension plan also pointed to the state’s struggle with high turnover rates, including up to 30% of teachers in urban and rural districts alike each year. 

Sen. Löki Tobin, D-Anchorage, and chair of the Senate Education Committee, said the high unseen costs of turnover of educators is magnified throughout the state.

“Because of high teacher turnover, we’re already paying $20 to $30 million a year,” she said. “We can either continue to pay that in turnover costs, or we can fund a quality retirement program that retains our quality educators, attracts new quality educators, and ensures that our kids get the best education they deserve.”

Senators in support of the pension plan noted a recent state audit of Alaska state government that reported hundreds of millions lost in federal reimbursements or incorrectly accounted for due to a variety of factors, including “staff turnover,” “competing priorities” or “inadequate supervisory review.”

Wielechowski pointed to one example of the Alaska Department of Military and Veterans Affairs underreported disaster spending for federal reimbursement by $297 million. The error was corrected once identified by auditors, according to the report. 

“Dozens of projects incorrectly reported. And that’s just that’s just a fraction of the inaccuracies and the mistakes,” Wielechowski said. 

Opponents of the pension bill pointed to other factors contributing to high turnover like work environment, leadership and a need to raise salaries.

That included Cronk who said he receives a pension after teaching for 25 years. “I would say focus should be on our pay,” he said.

Drygas, with the state’s public employees union, said while the pension plan is one important part of Alaska’s workforce issues, she sees it as crucial for stemming the tide of outmigration from the state.  

“I cannot tell you how many people, just personal, friends and acquaintances that I know, that are leaving state service in particular because they can’t retire here. They can’t live on the retirement that our state offers,” she said. “So I think a lot of us are hopeful that, you know, five or 10 years in the future, if this legislation should pass and become law, we’ll see a turnaround in our state workforce again.”