This symbol is inside of the Alaska Department of Corrections office on Sept. 7, 2022, in Douglas, Alaska. (Photo by Lisa Phu/Alaska Beacon)
The Alaska Department of Corrections spent over $24 million more than the budget approved by the Legislature last year, with a large portion for staff overtime, raising alarm from lawmakers.
DOC officials submitted their additional budget request to the Legislature earlier this month, part of a routine budget process to account for state spending over the past year — but this year’s price tag for the state’s prison system is at a historic high.
The department requested an additional $20 million for staffing and overtime for last year at the state’s 13 prison and jail facilities.
According to department data provided to the Senate Finance Committee on Thursday, there were 15 correctional staff that earned over $100,000 each in overtime pay last year, on top of salary and benefits.
Two correctional officers at the Anchorage Correctional Complex worked over 2,000 hours in overtime last year — one officer topped the list working 2,770 hours of overtime, to earn a total of over $225,000 last year.
DOC officials did not respond to questions about the department’s policies around overtime and mandatory overtime on Thursday, but a spokesperson said the department’s current vacancy rate is 11.5% statewide. In budget documents, DOC officials noted the additional funding was needed for minimal staffing requirements for “24/7 operational readiness.”
Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka and co-chair of the Senate Finance Committee, said while the rising costs in DOC are well-known, going millions over budget is a problem as lawmakers grapple with declining state oil revenues and a growing list of state funding needs this year.
“Their budget has been growing exponentially,” he said Thursday. “It’s not fair, because those funds that are being channeled in that direction could go elsewhere.”
DOC’s budget has seen increases year-over-year throughout Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s term, unlike other agencies who have sustained cutbacks. Since 2019, the state budget for DOC has increased 46% to over $437 million last year, according to state data.
The $24 million in additional funds the agency requested also included $1.1 million for community residential treatment centers, or halfway houses, and $2.95 million in health care costs last year.
Sen. Mike Cronk, R-Tok, also serves on the Senate Finance Committee and expressed surprise and concern at the overtime hours presented to the committee on Thursday.
“That’s literally 100 hours a week. All year long,” he said, and questioned if people were running up overtime for a short time in order to retire or leave the department. “So it’s very concerning. You know, obviously I don’t blame anybody for it, but we have to figure out why this is happening, and we just have to do better. We have to be more efficient and make sure that we’re doing everything we possibly can to keep costs down.”
Stedman questioned the state’s contracts with the union representing correctional officers, the Alaska Correctional Officers Association, in accounting for the extensive overtime.
“My concern is maybe they ought to haggle a little bit better when they do their labor agreements, because this is definitely not appropriate for the public treasury to put up with, and it’s got to get corrected,” he said.
Representatives with the union did not immediately respond to emailed questions about lawmakers’ concerns on Thursday.
Last year, over 9,800 people entered DOC custody in institutions or on supervised release on probation or parole, according to state data.
Matanuska-Susitna Borough Mayor Edna DeVries looks up at fellow Alaska Republican governor candidate Matt Heilala during a candidate forum on Feb. 11, 2026, in Juneau. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
Matanuska-Susitna Borough Mayor Edna DeVries looks up at fellow Alaska Republican governor candidate Matt Heilala during a candidate forum on Feb. 11, 2026, in Juneau. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)
An Anchorage doctor and his wife have put almost $1.3 million of their own money into his campaign for Alaska governor, an extraordinary act that puts him atop early fundraising totals in figures published this week by the Alaska Public Offices Commission.
With more than $1 million remaining in the bank after early spending, Republican candidate Matt Heilala stands out among a field of candidates that expanded to 17 this week with the entry of community organizer Meda DeWitt.
State law requires political candidates to disclose their financial support on an irregular basis; the next report isn’t due until July, so this week’s figures represent an early look at who might be a competitive candidate.
Campaign fundraising doesn’t guarantee success at the polls, experts say, but it can act like gas in a car’s tank: Even a campaign with a high-powered engine can fall short if it doesn’t have enough gas in the tank.
‘Zero chance’ of getting elected without money
“Money is the mother’s milk of politics,” said Jim Lottsfeldt, an experienced Alaska campaign consultant. “I didn’t coin that phrase, but it is true. If you’re not raising sufficient money to float an organization, you have zero chance of getting elected.”
Lottsfeldt hasn’t signed a contract with any candidate in the race but was planning to personally host a fundraiser for Democratic candidate Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins.
Former Alaska attorney general Treg Taylor, another Republican candidate, reported having more than $724,000 in his campaign accounts as of Feb. 1, the reporting deadline for the information published this week. He also made a significant contribution to his own campaign — records show a $250,000 donation from Taylor to his campaign.
Both he and Kreiss-Tomkins stood out from the field in terms of dollars available to spend: The only other candidates who reported having more than $226,201 available were Heilala and Democratic candidate and current state Sen. Matt Claman.
Kreiss-Tomkins said in a news release that his campaign had raised more than $750,000 since entering the race this month; because he entered the race after Feb. 1, those figures were not included in this week’s APOC reports.
It also wasn’t clear how much of that total he has already spent. Several candidates reported that they had already spent much of the money they raised since starting their campaigns.
Republican businesswoman Bernadette Wilson has raised almost $306,000 since becoming the third candidate to enter the governor’s race, but she has spent more than two-thirds of that total. Similarly, former state Sen. Click Bishop has spent more than half of the $283,605 he reported raising since he started his campaign last summer.
Anchorage doctor seeks to fill a niche
Heilala, the self-funded candidate, spent more than any other candidate in the early going but still has the largest stockpile of campaign cash.
By phone on Wednesday, he said he hopes to fill a niche on the ballot.
“A lot of people claim they want a non-politician, non-bureaucrat, but how do you raise funds if nobody knows who you are?” he asked.
He said he and his wife have “worked our tail off” in their lives and have enough financial freedom to afford their spending.
He said that while he is a podiatrist, he also is “a fairly diverse business guy.”
“And that’s where my success has come from — investing and property developing and a lot of other things,” he said.
Self-funding the campaign to such a large degree means they can’t be swayed as much by donors, he said.
Heilala is a member of the state medical board but hasn’t served in public office before. At a candidate forum in Juneau, he praised President Donald Trump and said that he and his wife are golfing buddies with the president.
That they’re willing to spend so much of their own money shows they’re serious about their campaign, he said.
“From this point forward, it will be a little easier to get larger donors,” he predicted.
Matt Larkin is president of Dittman Research, which conducts polls and advises candidates in Alaska. Early fundraising figures can “serve sort of the same function as a primary” election, he said.
“When you have this many candidates … it’s really hard for donors to make a decision on who they’re going to support. And what you’ll typically see is donors will kind of support maybe multiple candidates at this stage in small amounts, but they’re really kind of waiting to see who emerges,” he said. “And so, this first fundraising update, I think will probably narrow the field some.”
Among well-known candidates, incumbent Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom, a Republican, reported having just $4,880 in cash on hand, less than Matanuska-Susitna Borough Mayor Edna DeVries, another Republican candidate.
Former state Sen. Click Bishop reported $130,258 in cash on hand, putting him in the bottom half of candidates, but his list of donors was an unusually multipartisan list that included former state Sen. John Coghill, a conservative Republican from Nenana, and current state Sen. Jesse Kiehl, a progressive Democrat from Juneau, among others.
Former state Rep. Joe Hayes, a Democrat, was a donor, as was Leslie Hajdukovich, a Republican who unsuccessfully challenged Hayes’ current employer — Democratic state Sen. Scott Kawasaki — in a 2024 Fairbanks Senate race.
In Alaska, there are no limits on donations — for now
Alaska has no limits on the amount of money an individual can donate to a political campaign. The state’s prior limits were eliminated by the U.S. 9th Circuit of Appeals in 2021, and the state declined to appeal the decision.
Those new limits would take effect after the November general election.
Several third-party groups registered with the public offices commission last month to support various candidates, but none have reported significant spending or donations.
In the 2022 race for governor, Republican Mike Dunleavy’s campaign spent more than $2 million. A supporting campaign backed by the Republican Governors Association, added almost $3 million in a parallel effort.
Gara said that with early fundraising numbers, “you can get a sense for how hard somebody’s working, and I think that’s the most important thing.”
In general, Lottsfeldt said, “the reason you want this money is you need to spend it mostly when people are paying attention and are going to cast a ballot. And so that is really, mid-July through the third week in August.”
“Unfortunately for all the guys and women running for governor,” he said, “there’s this U.S. Senate iceberg floating in the middle of the channel.”
Lottsfeldt expects that the U.S. Senate race between Democrat Mary Peltola and Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan will take up most of the available TV and radio ad slots because those candidates will have more money and be able to outbid governor candidates.
For that reason, he thinks a successful governor candidate will invest in things like yard signs, supporters going door-to-door, and other parts of a “field game.”
“It’s funny: Yard signs don’t win campaigns, but it is a marker of, ‘oh, that campaign is active. There’s people behind that. There’s enthusiasm. … Whether it’s a door stop, a yard sign, word of mouth, that is going to be huge when we have 16 people who are running.”
Even as Lottsfeldt talked, that number had already increased by one.
The deadline to sign up as a candidate is June 1. Candidates may drop out of the race as late as June 27.
In Alaska, the top four finishers in the August primary, regardless of political affiliation, advance to the November general election, where voters use ranked choice voting to sort the candidates in order of preference and pick a winner.
Larkin, of Dittman Research, doesn’t have a contract with any candidate but has done polling on the governor’s race. While money is important, he said, “how you use that money is more important.”
“Increasingly, it’s the message that these candidates will go with will end up being the difference,” he said. “… I think the candidate with the best ideas is going to win this race, bottom line.”
Wooden gavel with books in background. Law and justice concept
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
Wooden gavel with books in background.
Alaska’s legally required campaign ad disclaimers do not violate the First Amendment, the state supreme court ruled Friday, deciding a six-year-old dispute between the Alaska Policy Forum and state campaign regulators.
Justice Dario Borghesan wrote the 61-page decision on behalf of the court, which ruled unanimously and upheld minor fines against APF that were issued by the Alaska Public Offices Commission five years ago.
At issue were a series of news releases, opinion pieces and a video embedded in the group’s website, all opposing ranked-choice voting.
“We uphold the agency’s decision, concluding that the cited publications had to be reported and required a ‘paid for by’ disclosure,” Borghesan wrote. “We also hold that the statutory standards are not unconstitutionally vague because they give fair notice of what kind of speech must be reported and must contain a disclosure. And we conclude that the First Amendment challenges to these laws are unavailing.”
APF organized with a variety of groups across the country to produce the video embedded in its website, the opinion notes.
“APF did not just happen to find a video on the internet and share it on social media. APF engaged in discussions with organizations around the country to create a national coalition that developed or gathered content on ranked-choice voting and allowed APF to republish that content. Such efforts required significant time, and someone paid for that time. Alaskans have a genuine interest in knowing who,” the opinion states.
The case dates from 2020, when Alaskans voted to approve Ballot Measure 2.
That measure installed open primary elections, required disclosure of some political donations and installed ranked-choice voting in general elections.
That system remains in place today but has been challenged by a new repeal initiative. A prior repeal effort failed in 2024.
In September 2020, Alaskans for Better Elections, a group that supports the current voting system, filed a complaint with the commission, stating that APF was violating state law because its statements on ranked-choice voting did not list their three top contributors, something required for campaign communications.
APF contended that its statements were about ranked-choice voting in general, not about Ballot Measure 2 in particular, because they didn’t specifically name the Alaska measure.
APOC commissioners disagreed and cited APF, requiring it to file disclosure forms but waiving fines. APF appealed to Superior Court Judge Frank Pfiffner, who ruled in the commission’s favor, finding that the commission “reasonably concluded that APF’s activities amounted to an express communication that was an exhortation to vote against (Ballot Measure 2).”
Pfiffner rejected technical arguments against the commission’s actions, the argument that state laws were improperly vague, the idea that the First Amendment gave APF a right to publish its material without a disclosure, and APF’s challenge to a state law that requires political groups to disclose contributions starting with the “first dollar” they spend.
Individuals are not subject to the same disclosure requirement.
APF appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in September 2023 and ruled more than two years later.
In Friday’s order, Borghesan repeatedly refers to past rulings by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which holds jurisdiction over Alaska.
Relying on that precedent, the court concluded that given the context and language of APF’s communications, there was no other way to view them than as urging a particular vote in the 2020 campaign.
“In the context of an upcoming election in which ranked-choice voting is on the ballot,” Friday’s order states, a “video’s reference to a ‘push’ by ‘interest groups’ for ranked-choice voting and its call to ‘SAY NO TO RANKED CHOICE VOTING’ is a clear, albeit indirect, reference to voting against the Initiative.”
The Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“APF is disappointed by the decision,” said attorney Stacey Stone, who represented the group in court. “The ruling allows the state to treat protected educational speech about public policy as regulated campaign activity. That approach threatens to chill core First Amendment expression. We are reviewing the opinion carefully and evaluating our options.”
Attorney Scott Kendall represented Alaskans for Better Elections.
“Alaskans for Better Elections has been focused on campaign finance transparency since its founding. This victory affirms those values,” he said, explaining that the group is “very pleased with this outcome.”
Kendall noted that Alaskans have an interest in knowing who is funding ads in their elections.
“Hopefully, the Policy Forum will now comply with the law and disclose its donors, as it should have done years ago,” he said.
From left to right, Click Bishop, Dave Bronson and Adam Crum, three of the 10 candidates at the Capital City Republican governor candidate forum, are seen on Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2026, at the Baranof Hotel in Juneau. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
From left to right, Click Bishop, Dave Bronson and Adam Crum, three of the 10 candidates at the Capital City Republican governor candidate forum, are seen on Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2026, at the Baranof Hotel in Juneau. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)
A fast-moving forum in Juneau on Wednesday hosted 10 of Alaska’s 12 Republican candidates for governor, but the size of the field in the hourlong event meant there was more flavor than meat in the soup du jour.
All but two of the candidates effusively praised incumbent President Donald Trump, but despite that support, most said they disagree with his attempt to acquire Greenland and make it part of the United States.
As of Wednesday, 16 people have signed up to run for governor in this year’s election: 12 Republicans, 3 Democrats and an independent.
The top four candidates in the August primary election will advance to the November general election, where voters will sort their choices using ranked choice voting.
Incumbent Gov. Mike Dunleavy is term-limited and unable to run for a third term, leaving the seat open.
Current Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom and author Hank Kroll were the only Republicans to not participate in Wednesday’s event, which was hosted by the Capital City Republicans on the night of their annual Lincoln Day dinner. Dahlstrom had a prior commitment and was unable to attend, organizers said. Kroll was not mentioned.
Asked to name their favorite Republican president other than Reagan and Lincoln, most of the 10 candidates said Trump, and some said they put him above Reagan and Lincoln.
“He’s the best president Alaska’s ever had,” said former attorney general Treg Taylor.
“I’d have taken a bullet for him,” said Bruce Walden, a former paratrooper.
“Trump has done more for Alaska than every president in our entire American history,” said former state Sen. Shelley Hughes.
Anchorage podiatrist and state medical board member Matt Heilala said he had to choose Trump because Heilala and his wife play golf with Trump.
Former state Sen. Click Bishop was an exception, naming Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan as his favorite presidents. James William Parkin IV of Angoon said he doesn’t choose favorites and didn’t name a pick.
Asked whether Alaska should support the American acquisition of Greenland, Bishop was quick to say “no,” and most of the other candidates followed suit.
“I think we have enough problems here, and I’d like to see the federal government give us more support to develop our resources here,” said former state revenue commissioner Adam Crum.
Taylor said that “when my friend, the governor of Louisiana, Jeff Landry, was tapped to be the US envoy (to Greenland), I texted him and said, ‘What the heck? You don’t even know what it’s like to be cold.’ Ultimately, it’s a question for Greenland and self determination, but I’d be happy to talk to (Trump) about how we fit into the United States and the importance that we play in our economy and our strategic location.”
Matanuska-Susitna Borough Mayor Edna DeVries was the sole candidate who offered a different answer, saying, “Well, if I want President Trump to continue to love Alaska, I’m going to say yes.”
All but Bishop and Parkin said they intend to support the repeal of Alaska’s 2020 ballot measure, which installed open primary elections and a ranked-choice general election, as well as tougher disclosure requirements for political donations.
The candidates split when asked whether they think Alaska’s judges should be required to run for office or whether judges should be appointed, as in the existing system.
Bishop, Heilala and Hughes each said they think judges should be appointed, though Hughes called for more public members on the Alaska Judicial Council, which examines applicants and nominates candidates to the governor for appointment.
Former Anchorage Mayor Dave Bronson, Crum, DeVries, Parkin, Taylor, Walden and Wilson each said they think judges should be elected.
When asked which Alaska politician each candidate admires, most said either Ted Stevens or Don Young, longtime Republicans who served in the Senate and House, respectively.
“I don’t think hardly any of them,” Wilson said. “I think you have to get back to my great-uncle Wally (Hickel). … Nick Begich is also doing a hell of a job.”
Wilson served as a senior adviser to Begich’s 2024 election campaign.
Walden also chose Nick Begich.
Asked whether Alaska should regulate artificial intelligence software, the candidates gave a variety of answers.
AI is sort of like a hammer, Walden said. “You can build a house with a hammer. You can also murder somebody with a hammer. If it’s used properly, it’s probably going to be all right, but yeah, we better regulate it big time,” he said.
Wilson said that if anyone on her campaign team is using AI, “they better not be.”
While it is a powerful tool and can be harnessed, she said there are serious concerns. “We have seen AI used to manipulate photos, especially against people running for office. We’ve seen it used to create comments that were never said. I think that we really need to pay attention to the damage that can be done for AI,” she said.
DeVries, at 83, is the oldest candidate in the field.
“I can remember when TV came in and how horrible that was going to be, right? It ended up — it can either be a blessing or a curse, and that’s the way I feel about AI,” she said.
Taylor, who said he used AI to help prepare his closing speech, said “Alaska is AI’s best friend” because the state is the source for critical minerals used in high-tech electronics.
“On the other side, AI is Alaska’s best friend,” because it could be used to make government functions more efficient, Taylor said.
“We have to responsibly deploy AI in state government to create those efficiencies, to create those savings, or we’re going to get left behind.”
Reject stickers await ballot envelopes Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at the Division 1 office of the Alaska Division of Elections in Juneau, Alaska during counting for Alaska's special U.S. House primary election. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
Reject stickers await ballot envelopes Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at the Division 1 office of the Alaska Division of Elections in Juneau, Alaska during counting for Alaska’s special U.S. House primary election. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
When the state of Alaska turned over a copy of the state’s voter rolls to the Department of Justice in December, it also signed an agreement that allows the DOJ to ask the state to put individual Alaskans on track for removal from the state’s voter list.
Officially labeled a “confidential memorandum of understanding,” the document was signed Dec. 19 by Carol Beecher, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, and U.S. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon.
Alaska is one of at least a dozen states that have signed similar documents, even as more states continue to fight the requests in court.
In part, the document says “the Justice Department will securely notify you or your state of any voter list maintenance issues … i.e., that your state’s (list) only includes eligible voters.”
It goes on to state “that within forty-five (45) days of receiving that notice from the Justice Department of any issues … your state will clean its (list) by removing ineligible voters and resubmit the updated (list) to the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department” to confirm that the state is following federal law.
Alaska’s signed agreement was obtained by the Alaska Beacon on Tuesday via a public records request.
Beecher and Kelly Howell, chief of staff to Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom, said the agreement does not allow DOJ to purge voters — a term that means removing them from the voter roll altogether.
Instead, the DOJ’s picks, if any, would be placed on the state’s inactive voter list. Anyone on that list must provide ID and have their identity verified if they wish to vote.
The agreement says in part that it was “entered into at your state’s request,” but by email, Dahlstrom’s office said that isn’t correct and that the Department of Justice provided the agreement.
The lieutenant governor is in charge of Alaska’s elections, and in a cover letter dated Dec. 19, she said the memo was “entered at the request of the Department of Justice” and state law.
That law, Dahlstrom said, “allows the Division of Elections to share voters’ confidential information with a federal government agency, such as the Department of Justice, provided it uses ‘the information only for governmental purposes authorized under law.’”
If the Department of Justice were to seek faster removal of Alaskans from the voter rolls, it could violate that clause.
Responding to questions from the Beacon, the lieutenant governor’s chief of staff said the state has not received any notices from the Justice Department about problems with its voter list, that no “ineligible voters” have been removed and that the state isn’t aware of any times when Alaska’s rolls were used for “pre-litigation or litigation purposes,” as defined in the agreement.
Concerns about states’ rights being overridden
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the right of states to set the rules for local and state elections; changing voter rolls would represent a new expansion of powers by the Department of Justice.
Former Democratic state Sen. Tom Begich, posting about the issue on social media, said he is “outraged” by the agreement between the state and the federal government.
“That kind of federal interference threatens our constitutional right to run our own elections,” he said.
He later issued a statement calling on the Alaska Legislature to investigate the issue.
Dahlstrom, a Republican, is also a candidate for governor.
Writing in an opinion column published by the Juneau Independent on Friday, former Alaska Attorney General Bruce Botelho, a Democrat, said “it is alarming that the federal government has demanded” the copy of the voter roll with personally identifying information.
Nationally, at least 11 other states have signed agreements similar to the one signed by Alaska, according to federal court testimony in December over a lawsuit that challenged the state of California’s refusal to turn over its voter rolls to the federal government.
The text of Alaska’s agreement is almost identical to ones previously disclosed in court and by the American Civil Liberties Union in a lawsuit by the federal government against the state of Colorado.
“We will not comply with the Trump Department of Justice’s request for Coloradans’ sensitive voting information,” said Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat, in December. “The DOJ can take a hike; it does not have a legal right to the information. Colorado will not help Donald Trump undermine our elections and hurt the American people.”
Nationally, the federal government has sued more than two dozen states, including Colorado, that refused to send voter rolls to the federal government.
Those states generally have provided copies of publicly available rolls, but the federal government is seeking more detailed information, including lists of personally identifying information that may include birth dates, driver’s license numbers and Social Security numbers in part or whole.
“The manner in which the Department of Justice has acted makes clear that what is at stake is not voter integrity, but voter privacy,” Botelho said.
The Justice Department has said that its requests are necessary to make sure that states are following federal laws that require them to regularly maintain their lists and keep noncitizens from voting.
As of this week, federal judges had ruled against the Department of Justice in lawsuits covering Oregon, California and Michigan. The department has not prevailed in any case so far.
In the Oregon ruling, published on Feb. 5, Judge Mustafa Kashubhai wrote that the federal government cannot be trusted about its true motives.
“When Plaintiff, in this case, conveys assurances that any private and sensitive data will remain private and used only for a declared and limited purpose, it must be thoroughly scrutinized and squared with its open and public statements to the contrary,” he wrote.
Alaska-specific implications may be broad
The national ACLU has opposed the federal government’s requests in general. When contacted Friday about the Alaska memo, the Alaska chapter of the organization said it did not have immediate comment and was still researching the issue.
The agreement between the state of Alaska and the Department of Justice could have broad consequences here.
Days before signing the agreement, the Alaska Division of Elections disclosed that dozens of noncitizens had accidentally been registered to vote by the Alaska Department of Motor Vehicles.
Under guidelines imposed by the Trump administration, those noncitizens could be deported, because federal law strictly prohibits noncitizens from registering to vote, and appearing on a voter list prompts special review when someone is attempting to become a citizen.
Correction: The initial version of this article incorrectly stated that the memo would allow the Department of Justice to direct the purge of individual voters. It only permits DOJ to identify Alaskans for eventual removal and does not immediately prevent them from voting.
The Alaska State Capitol is seen behind other buildings on Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2026, in downtown Juneau. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
The Alaska State Capitol is seen behind other buildings on Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2026, in downtown Juneau. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)
The Alaska Legislature on Wednesday approved a 30-day extension for the state of disaster covering the fall 2025 storms that battered the state’s west coast.
The extension allows the state to continue spending money from its disaster response fund as it continues cleanup and repair efforts from two storms in October. Hundreds of Alaskans were displaced by the disasters, which devastated coastal communities.
The Alaska Senate approved the extension in a 19-0 vote on Monday, but the extension nearly failed in the Alaska House after members of the House’s Republican minority caucus raised procedural issues on Wednesday and said members of the majority were not following state law.
The extension was included in Senate Concurrent Resolution 12, which retroactively approves extensions issued since October and allows the governor to spend more from the state’s disaster response fund.
“Doing this as a resolution is dangerous, I think it’s a mistake, and I’m not even certain that it’s legal,” said House Minority Leader DeLena Johnson, R-Palmer.
Johnson and other Republicans said that under their interpretation of state law, legislators would need to approve the spending via a bill, not a resolution.
A legislative attorney, writing in a Feb. 2 memo to Speaker of the House Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham, said, “when the legislature means to take action having a binding effect on those outside the legislature, including extending a disaster declaration, the legislature must enact a bill in a special or regular session rather than using the less formal resolution process.”
Johnson was rebutted by House Rules Chair Louise Stutes, R-Kodiak and a member of the House’s majority coalition.
“This is not new money,” she said. “This is money that has been (in the fund) and is being allowed to be appropriated out. … it’s been agreed upon that maybe this wasn’t the optimum way. Nothing’s perfect. We’re moving forward. We are trying to do the best we can as quickly as we can. Time is of the essence, so I ask you to ask yourself: Do you want to be right in how it is done, or do you want to do the right thing when there’s a question?”
The House vote was 22-18, with Rep. Will Stapp, R-Fairbanks, joining the 21 members of the House’s coalition majority in support. All other members of the House Republican minority voted against the resolution.
As debate opened, Rep. Nellie Unangiq Jimmie, D-Toksook Bay, became choked up as she described the disaster, which devastated her district and resulted in the largest peacetime evacuation in state history.
“Today, months later, 340 of our neighbors remain without permanent houses. Mr. Speaker, we are Yup’ik. Our people have lived in this delta for thousands of years. We know storms. We know water. We know loss,” she said. “We have lived on this coast for thousands of years, and we’ve survived ice ages, epidemics, colonization. We’ve survived by adapting, sharing, by refusing to abandon our homes, but you can’t really live when your home floats 10 miles out to sea, when your fuel tanks that heat your home in winter are submerged in salt water.”
On Jan. 28, Gov. Mike Dunleavy requested permission to spend $20.5 million from the disaster response fund, up $5.5 million from a prior request.
When federal money is added to that tally, the total amount is $39.25 million.
More spending is expected.
Last week, the director of the Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management said that the Federal Emergency Management Agency has estimated at least $125 million in state and federal costs related to the storm disaster.
“The declaration allows state agencies to continue their emergency response and to extend state funds as needed,” said Rep. Andy Josephson, D-Anchorage and co-chair of the House Finance Committee.
Rep. Justin Ruffridge, R-Soldotna, took issue with the fact that after Dunleavy declared a state of disaster in October, the Speaker of the House and Senate President approved subsequent 30-day extensions without consulting legislators.
“I think we should have called ourselves in (to special session), or the third floor should have called us in (to special session) to take up this very important issue,” Ruffridge said.
“What precedent does this set for the presiding officers to make the decisions before us on our behalf?” he asked. “What power do we give the executive by allowing disaster declarations to continue without (the House) or the (Senate) taking up that order of business?”
Rep. Dan Saddler, R-Eagle River, said he worries that failing to follow proper procedure could leave disaster relief vulnerable to legal challenge.
“We put the reliability of that relief at question if this is not done right,” he said.
The day after the vote, Ruffridge said members of the minority have drafted a bill that would fix the problems they see, and that bill is being reviewed by legislative attorneys.
House Majority Leader Chuck Kopp, R-Anchorage, said legislative attorneys have reviewed the majority’s plan.
“We have had our legal department tell us that this passes muster,” he said during the debate.
After the vote, Kopp’s office was unable to provide a legal memo to that effect but said he had received verbal advice.
Josephson, wrapping up debate, said the majority was working in good faith with Dunleavy to get the money out the door quickly.
“Given the urgency of the matter, we’re trying to cooperate with the executive branch,” he said.
Speaker of the House Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham, leaves the House chambers before the start of a special legislative session on Saturday, Aug. 2, 2025, at the Alaska Capitol in Juneau. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
Speaker of the House Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham, leaves the House chambers before the start of a special legislative session on Saturday, Aug. 2, 2025, at the Alaska Capitol in Juneau. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)Speaker of the House Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham, leaves the House chambers before the start of a special legislative session on Saturday, Aug. 2, 2025, at the Alaska Capitol in Juneau. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
Leading members of the Alaska House of Representatives said Friday that Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s ambitious long-term state fiscal plan has almost no support among legislators and is almost certainly dead on arrival.
House leaders spoke with reporters Friday morning, a day after members of the House Finance Committee heard two hours of public testimony on the governor’s proposed statewide sales tax, the cornerstone of his multi-part proposal to bring state expenses and revenue into line over the next five years.
Every Alaskan who testified — almost 30 in total — was against the tax.
“This is just pure speculation on my part, but what you hear folks in the hall say is, if there’s a vote today on the sales tax, it could be a zero to 60 vote,” said Rep. Neal Foster, D-Nome and co-chair of the House Finance Committee.
House Minority Leader DeLena Johnson, R-Palmer, said there might be a handful of legislators who would still support the governor’s plan, but it’s pretty clear that it lacks the support it needs to become law.
“From the testimony that was taken last night in House Finance — when everyone who called in spoke in opposition — it certainly makes it hard to think there’s a lot of people that aren’t very cautious about saying they’re for the governor’s plan,” she said.
The governor’s plan calls for a seasonal statewide sales tax, changes to the state’s oil and corporate taxes, a constitutionally guaranteed Permanent Fund dividend formula, changes to the structure of the Alaska Permanent Fund and a tighter spending cap in state law.
Those changes are being proposed because oil and investment revenue can’t keep up with demand for services and dividends, and lawmakers are unwilling to cut services any more than they already have.
Since 2015, legislators and governors have cut state agencies’ budgets by 16.6%, after accounting for inflation. The state’s capital budget, which pays for new construction and maintenance, has been cut by more than 80%.
Every year since 2016, the Permanent Fund dividend has been cut below the amount called for in state law.
Dunleavy’s proposal would be a way to stanch the fiscal bleeding. The new taxes are intended to be temporary because the Dunleavy administration expects North Slope oil production to rise, boosting state revenue, and it expects that a proposed trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline will be built and generate more money for the state.
Even before this week’s presentations and public testimony, many legislators were skeptical of the plan, and saw the new taxes as merely a way to pay a larger Permanent Fund dividend.
“I’m a logic person,” said Senate Minority Leader Mike Cronk, R-Tok, on Jan. 28, one day after the governor debuted his plan.“We’re going to tax those people that are productive so everybody gets a check? That don’t work for me. … That’s just not logical to me,” he said.
Lawmakers analyzed the sales tax first, in a series of hearings this week, but because it received such a negative reaction in public testimony, legislators are now wondering if it’s worth considering any other part of the governor’s fiscal plan, given that they are all viewed as one package.
Foster said it doesn’t look like the governor’s proposal could be amended and improved enough to get sufficient support in the Capitol.
“Sometimes, you could say, ‘We’re kind of close on things, and there’s a lot of great areas that we can work on,’ but this one just seems to be — folks are just really, really unhappy,” he said.
There are costs to inaction as well. The Institute of Social and Economic Research recently estimated that the state has missed out on 2-3% of its gross domestic product over the past 10 years because of the lack of a fiscal plan. Without a long-term structure, legislators have gotten dragged into annual debates over the size of the Permanent Fund dividend, which has prevented them from discussing other pressing issues.
Some lawmakers have concerns beyond the sales tax. Johnson thinks the governor’s proposal for a revised fiscal cap is inadequate. Because it would be in state law, rather than in the constitution, future legislators could ignore it just as they do the current Permanent Fund dividend formula.
That’s why she calls it a “spending beanie,” instead of a spending cap.
“I personally think it’s rather small, and it would be easily overcome,” she said. “And for that reason, I think of it as a spending beanie.”
Speaker of the House Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham, said he’s skeptical of this proposal’s chances after years of other attempts to enact a fiscal plan.
“I won’t regale you with tales from years past, but on the Finance Committee, we have spent weeks and weeks going through a lot of this stuff, and it never got a compromise when it came to the floor. So that’s the issue at hand here,” he said.
Rep. Calvin Schrage, I-Anchorage and another Finance co-chair, said that after hearing Thursday’s public testimony, he’s not sure the governor’s proposal can be successful either. “There is so much education that still needs to take place and studying that needs to be done for us to be able to move it forward in a way that would get broad support,” he said.
“I think folks are just kind of waiting until next year before we, you know, really take a serious stab at some of those things, like the income tax,” Foster said.
“I have higher hopes for next year than I do this year. You know, a new executive leadership branch and the leadership there,” he said.
Later in the day, in a one-on-one interview with the Alaska Beacon, Dunleavy said lawmakers are going to be disappointed if they think that negotiating with a new governor will be any easier.
Dunleavy is term-limited and leaves office in December.
“A governor who goes in there and puts out a plan like this in their first or second year, they’re going to get the same thing we’re getting now,” Dunleavy said. “And that doesn’t work.”
When an Alaskan flies to Seattle and looks out the airplane window, they’ll see construction cranes dotting the skyline, Dunleavy said.
“Washington is a state that does not have an income tax. It’s a sales tax. Washington’s economy is actually pretty good,” he said.
He referred to a fiscal analysis performed by the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska Anchorage, which found that a seasonal sales tax with large exemptions would fall more on nonresidents than an income tax would.
“The sales tax is the best thing we could come up with,” he said, referring to that analysis.
Reducing the PFD to balance the budget — the Legislature’s preferred policy since 2016 — is the most regressive option, harming poor Alaskans more than rich ones, ISER found.
“Taking the PFD is the worst thing you can do for the average person,” Dunleavy said.
He appeared frustrated by legislators’ actions and the lack of an alternative plan coming from the House or Senate.
“I’ve never seen a fiscal plan introduced,” Dunleavy said. “The closest I’ve ever seen was the first fiscal working group just a couple years ago.”
In 2017, the Alaska House of Representatives approved a state income tax as part of a three-part fiscal plan, but it did not become law.
“A tax is not a fiscal plan,” Dunleavy said when asked about that history.
He said that with 120 days in the legislative session, lawmakers have time to work on the issue and figure things out.
“Here you go: My last year, there’s no political skin in the game. I’m not going to lose anything because I’m not running for anything. And here’s an opportunity for these guys, and out of the gate, they said, ‘There’s not enough time.’ So if there’s not enough time for this,” Dunleavy said, “What are they spending their time on?”
NOTN- Despite a proposal from Governor Mike Dunleavy calling for a $3,600 permanent fund dividend, Alaska lawmakers say the numbers do not support an increase without new revenue.
State Senator Jesse Kiehl said the governor’s dividend proposal is not mathematically feasible under the current budget framework.
“The math just can’t work. There’s no way.” He said, “So one of the questions is going to be whether we can do any new revenues this year just to stabilize the PFD. I cannot see it going up.”
Without additional revenue, lawmakers are weighing whether to maintain a dividend similar to last year’s payment of about $1,000 or reduce it to a range closer to $600.
The final dividend amount is likely to remain unresolved until late in the legislative session, potentially stretching into mid-May, as lawmakers balance competing priorities for state spending.
A summary sheet is seen during ballot review on Tuesday, Aug. 27, 2024, at the headquarters of the Alaska Division of Elections in Juneau. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
Supporters of Alaska’s election system filed a lawsuit against the Alaska Division of Elections on Thursday, alleging that the state’s description of a roll-back-the-clock ballot measure is biased and inaccurate.
The state has defended its language, with a spokesperson calling it “accurate, neutral, and consistent with prior initiatives.”
This fall, voters will be asked with Ballot Measure 2 if they want to return Alaska’s election system to what it was in 2020. The state’s description would be printed on ballots alongside the measure.
Until 2020, political parties determined who could vote and run in primary elections, voters were required to pick just one candidate in the general election, and people could donate secretly to nonprofits that could then pass money to candidates.
In November 2020, Alaskans approved Ballot Measure 2, which put all political candidates for an office into the same primary election. The top four advance to a general election that uses ranked choice voting. Nonprofits that donate to political candidates are required to disclose their donors.
In 2024, an effort to repeal the primary and general election changes failed by 737 votes out of 320,985 cast statewide.
The plaintiffs in the new lawsuit are AFL-CIO president Joelle Hall, state Sen. Cathy Giessel, R-Anchorage, and former Juneau city council member Barbara Blake. All three are represented by attorney Scott Kendall, the prime author of the 2020 ballot measure that installed the current elections system.
The suit was organized by the Alaskans for Better Elections Foundation, Kendall said. Alaskans for Better Elections supported the 2020 measure and has opposed prior efforts to repeal it.
“I think (Alaskans) should know that the ballot language that has been offered by the Division of Directions is materially inaccurate, and in some cases, says the measure does the opposite of what it does, and it omits very significant changes the measure will make,” Kendall said by phone on Thursday.
In particular, the suit objects to the state’s claim that the ballot measure would restore or “bring back” campaign finance rules.
“The proposed measure (24ESEG) would not ‘restore,’ ‘bring back,’ or add even a single
campaign finance rule to Alaska’s statutes,” the suit states. “Rather, 24ESEG would fully repeal a litany of campaign finance disclosure requirements, and eliminate enhanced fines.”
A key part of the 2020 ballot measure and existing state law is the requirement that nonprofit groups disclose their financial supporters if those nonprofits contribute money to election candidates.
A prior effort to repeal the 2020 ballot measure would have left the disclosure requirement in place. The new repeal effort would eliminate the dark-money disclosure law, concealing donations.
A section-by-section analysis published by the Alaska Department of Law in February 2025 concluded that this year’s measure would “reverse several changes to campaign finance disclosure requirements.”
“It repeals a ton of very, very popular campaign finance disclosure provisions, and yet, the ballot language proposes to say it restores them,” Kendall said.
The lawsuit also asserts that the state’s approved language downplays the way that political parties would be permitted to determine who may vote in primary elections.
Independent candidates would not appear on primary election ballots unless one or more political parties allow them. Independent voters would not be allowed to vote in a primary unless permitted by political parties.
Before 2020, both the Republican and Democratic parties in Alaska allowed some independent voters to participate in their primaries.
“Granting major political parties in Alaska the power to disenfranchise voters for primary elections is neither mentioned, nor even implied, in the proposed ballot language,” the lawsuit states.
The Alaska Division of Elections is being legally defended by the Alaska Department of Law, which has not been formally served with the lawsuit but has a copy of the complaint.
“We have been in the midst of ongoing discussions with plaintiffs’ counsel, who was urging the adoption of ballot language that would have departed from the legal standard requiring accuracy and neutrality,” said Sam Curtis, a spokesperson for the Department of Law.
“We have not yet been served with the complaint and will review it when we are. The ballot language at issue is accurate, neutral, and consistent with prior initiatives. The alternative language advanced by the plaintiffs would be confusing and inject advocacy where the law requires impartial description. We are confident the courts will uphold the State’s language.”
The plaintiffs challenging the state have diverse political perspectives: Hall is a registered Democrat, Giessel is a Republican, and Blake is a registered nonpartisan. All three have opposed prior repeal efforts and are opposing this year’s as well.
Giessel said she wants Alaskans to know what they’re voting on.
“People tell me that they’ve signed initiatives, particularly this year — and other years previously as well — and then they find out that actually what they were told they were signing was misrepresented to them. So I want them to know exactly what’s in this,” she said.
Hall is an experienced campaigner.
“People need to know what they’re being asked to vote on, as clear as possible. Because some people will walk into that booth and read that word for word,” she said. “They will not have made up their mind ahead of time. So it just needs to be really clear.”
What do you think?
Below are the two versions of the proposed language on Ballot Measure 2. Which do you think is clearer and more accurate?
First, the state-written language:
An Act Restoring Political Party Primaries, Single-Choice General Elections, and Campaign Finance Rules
This act would get rid of open primary elections and ranked-choice general elections. It would bring back political party primaries and single-choice general elections. It would also bring back campaign finance rules.
Elections will occur as they did before open primaries and ranked choice voting. In the primary election, voters will choose a party’s ballot. They will vote for one candidate in each race and the winning candidate will be the party’s nominee. In the general election, voters will select one candidate in each race. The candidate with the most votes will win. Party petitions, special runoff elections, and other parts of the prior election system would return.
Campaign finance rules would also return to the way they were in the prior election system. This act would remove the limits on donations to joint campaigns for governor and lieutenant governor. It would remove limits and disclosure rules under current law, including for digital ads, out-of-state donations, undisclosed donations, and the true source of donations. It would remove some fines and change the meaning of a campaign expenditure.
Second, the language proposed in the lawsuit:
An Act Restoring Political Party Primaries and Single-Choice General Elections, and Repealing Certain Campaign Disclosure Requirements and Fines
This Act would get rid of open primary elections, where all candidates appear on one ballot. It would get rid of ranked-choice general elections. It would replace them with political party primaries and single-choice general elections. This Act would also repeal certain campaign finance disclosure requirements and get rid of or reduce some fines for violations.
In the primary election, voters would choose one party’s ballot and vote only for candidates from that party. Political parties would be given the power to prohibit voters who are not registered members of their party, including Nonpartisan and Undeclared voters, from voting in their primaries. The winning candidate from each primary would be the party’s nominee. In the General Election, voters would vote for only one candidate. The candidate receiving the most votes would win, whether or not that candidate has a majority of the votes cast for the race.
This Act would end the ban on dark money by getting rid of the requirement that independent expenditure groups report the true sources of their contributions. It would also get rid of the requirement that such groups, when they are funded mostly by out of state money, disclose that fact in their ads.
Finally, it would get rid of or reduce the fines for some campaign finance violations.
NOTN- Former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola has launched a campaign to serve as Alaska’s next U.S. senator, and now she will be making a stop in Juneau this evening for a Meet and Greet at the Crystal Saloon.
Peltola announced her candidacy Jan. 12, saying Washington politicians are increasingly driven by special interests and national politics at the expense of Alaskans. She said her campaign will focus on affordability, infrastructure, fisheries and protecting Alaska’s way of life.
According to her campaign website, Peltola is holding a public meet-and-greet later tonight, meant to give supporters and undecided voters a chance to speak with her directly about her Senate run.
Peltola is a lifelong Alaskan who grew up along the Kuskokwim River, noting on her website, “I’m running for Senate because I’ve lived firsthand how government is failing Alaskans.”
She is a former member of the Alaska State Legislature and previously served in Congress, where she built a reputation for working with both Democrats and Republicans.
