The U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2026. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)
WASHINGTON — For the second time in as many weeks, a War Powers Resolution aimed at curbing President Donald Trump’s war with Iran failed to pass the U.S. Senate Thursday.
The vote breakdown, 49-50, fell along familiar lines as previous War Powers votes, with Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Susan Collins of Maine supporting the measure.
Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania voted no, as he’s done in just over a dozen similar measures.
Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., continues to be absent while in medical rehab.
A similar War Powers Resolution to rein in Trump’s military conflict in Iran passed in the U.S. House on July 23, but failed in the Senate — both led by Republican majorities.
War heats up
The regional war reignited yet again this week after Trump ordered retaliatory strikes Tuesday, along with Saudi Arabia’s armed forces, on Iran-backed militias in eastern Iraq. The strikes on “multiple terrorist logistics and weapons sites” were in response to Iranian drone attacks on U.S. forces in the region, according to U.S. Central Command.
Trump told Fox News on Wednesday, “We are going to beat the f—– s—- out of them.”
The United States launched a “heavy wave” of strikes on Iranian military sites beginning at 10 p.m. Eastern Wednesday “in response to yesterday’s attempted missile attacks on U.S. forces,” according to U.S. Central Command.
The cost of oil jumped to just over $90 a barrel Wednesday in response to renewed fighting and a continued chokehold on traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, where one-fifth of the world’s petroleum traveled prior to the U.S. and Israel launching the war in late February.
This means Americans are again paying more for fuel. According to AAA, the U.S. national average for a gallon of regular gasoline rose to $4.09 Thursday.
Before the volley of strikes began again, Trump had announced a pause, after the U.S. and Iran traded rocket fire for nearly two weeks following the collapse of ceasefire talks.
Service members killed
The president on July 22 attended the dignified transfer, in which the remains of soldiers are transferred from an aircraft arriving from the theater of operations back to the United States, for four U.S. service members killed as a result of the conflict with Iran.
Three of the service members were killed July 17 and July 18 in an Iranian strike at a U.S. airbase in Jordan, and a fourth was killed during a controlled detonation of an Iranian drone July 19 at a U.S. base in Iraq.
The most recent deaths of U.S. soldiers in the conflict bring the total killed to 18, while the number of injured increased to 653.
But the Pentagon does not recognize the four most recent deaths among those in the Iran war, dubbed by the administration as Operation Epic Fury.
Instead, the Pentagon is categorizing the latest deaths and injuries as casualties of “overseas operations starting July 7, 2026.”
The administration is asking Congress for an additional $67 billion for the war in Iran. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told Senate appropriators July 21 that the war has already cost $37.5 billion.
Elections workers double-check the results of Alaska's Aug. 16, 2022 primary election during a meeting of the state review board on Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2022 at the Alaska Division of Elections in Juneau. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
Elections workers double-check the results of Alaska’s Aug. 16, 2022 primary election during a meeting of the state review board on Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2022 at the Alaska Division of Elections in Juneau. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
Early, in-person voting begins Monday for Alaska’s Aug. 18 state primary election, and thousands of voters have already cast absentee ballots by mail.
Regardless of when — or how — Alaskans vote, ballots will be counted starting on election day, according to a preliminary schedule provided by the Alaska Division of Elections.
Polls close at 8 p.m. Alaska Daylight Time, and the division expects to have the first preliminary results “between 8:45 p.m. and 9 p.m.”
“There are additional results updates that follow but how many or at what time they will be published will vary,” the division said in an information packet given to reporters.
The final unofficial tally will take place Aug. 28, 10 days after election day, and the division expects to certify official results by Aug. 31.
Any recounts must be requested by Sept. 5, and any lawsuit challenging a result must be filed by Sept. 10.
Timeline of the 2026 primary election
Aug. 3 – Early voting begins in person.
Aug. 11 – Elections officials begin ID checks on absentee ballot envelopes. Absentee votes in those envelopes are not counted until at least Aug. 18.
Aug. 18 – Election day. Polls open across the state.
Late Aug. 18 – Absentee ballots begin to be counted, in-person votes are counted.
9 p.m. Aug. 18 – First results expected online.
Early morning Aug. 19 – final election day results expected online.
Aug. 25 – Absentee votes counted to this point are added to the unofficial tally.
Aug. 28 – Final unofficial results available online.
Aug. 31 – Official results certified. Deadline for final four candidates to withdraw from the November election.
Sept. 5 – Deadline to request recounts.
Sept. 10 – Deadline to challenge election results in court.
Under Alaska’s election system, voters pick one candidate for each race in the primary election. The top four vote-getters, regardless of political party, advance to the general election in November. If there are four or fewer candidates in a race, all advance to the general election.
In practice since 2022, lower-finishing Republican candidates have preferred to withdraw after the primary rather than compete against another Republican.
The Valley Republican Women, a notable group from the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, are running ads this year to promote the strategy. Those ads urge Republicans to “consolidate the vote” and “don’t split the field.”
In races with many competitors, a withdrawn candidate will be replaced by another until there are four options on the ballot or no more replacements are available. Any replacements may themselves withdraw.
The deadline to withdraw after the primary is Aug. 31.
Normally, ballots cast in person are counted on election day itself. Since 2020, votes cast in person have leaned Republican.
It’s common for some rural Alaska precincts to not report results on election night itself.
Two years ago, for example, only 387 of 403 precincts had reported results by 1 a.m. Wednesday, the day after election day. Four years ago, four precincts needed more than four days to report results from election day.
Historically, some rural precincts have had staffing problems that prevented them from opening on election day. In 2024’s primary, two precincts failed to open, and one opened only in the afternoon. In 2022, two precincts failed to open. In both 2024 and 2022, voters in the affected places were able to cast absentee ballots instead.
Absentee ballots are counted starting on election day, but that counting process extends until Aug. 28. Under Alaska law, absentee ballots — if they are postmarked on or before Aug. 18 — can reach the Division of Elections up to 10 days after election day and still be counted.
Counting an absentee ballot requires the division to first verify the identity information on the outside of the ballot envelope. That verification process starts Aug. 11, the division said, though the ballot inside the envelope won’t be counted until at least election day.
The verification process continues after election day, with ballots added to the tally in batches. The division expects to update results on Aug. 25 and again on Aug. 28, with additional updates possible between those two dates.
A sample ballot seen at the headquarters of the Alaska Division of Elections on Thursday, July 9, 2026, shows the language for the campaign finance ballot measure. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)
On Aug. 18, Alaskans will be asked if they want to change the way the state’s elections operate, but not in the way that most voters are thinking.
The sole ballot measure before voters in the primary election would reimpose limits on the amount of money that individuals and groups can donate to political candidates in state elections.
A well-funded campaign to repeal the state’s system of open primaries and a ranked choice general election — known as Ballot Measure 2 — won’t be voted on until November.
The measure on the ballot in August would prohibit political donors from giving a candidate more than $2,000 per election. Groups would be allowed to give no more than $4,000 per candidate per election.
Both limits would be adjusted for inflation every 10 years, and they would only apply to state-level elections — for governor, state House and state Senate.
Federal elections, those for President, U.S. Senate and U.S. House, operate under different limits enshrined in federal law.
In the state’s official election pamphlet, the chairs of the group — former state attorney general Bruce Botelho; Rep. Calvin Schrage, I-Anchorage; dog musher David Monson — state their case, explaining that they view campaign donation limits as “guardrails” on democracy.
“Without these guardrails, wealthy individuals and special interests can have an oversized impact and shift a candidate’s focus away from the constituents they are supposed to serve,” they wrote.
Speaking in a public hearing on Monday, Schrage said, “When a single donor can spend hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars on a single candidate, it creates a dangerous environment. It not only grants undue influence to the ultra-wealthy, but it also exposes our elected officials to the risk and perception of quid pro quo corruption.”
In the pamphlet, three Republicans, all former legislators, argue against the initiative.
“Campaign contributions are a form of political speech. To limit someone’s ability to support a candidate is to limit their voice in the democratic process,” said former Rep. Ben Carpenter, R-Nikiski; former Sen. David Wilson, R-Wasilla; and former Rep. Liz Vazquez, R-Anchorage.
In addition, imposing limits on outside donations gives an advantage to candidates who are wealthy enough to pay for their own campaigns, they said.
In Monday’s hearing, another Republican, Amy Demboski, spoke in support of their position.
“Reintroducing new caps creates a pay-to-play barrier where only those who already possess significant name recognition can thrive, effectively silencing the grassroots support necessary for insurgent or unconventional candidates,” she said.
The U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that it is unconstitutional to limit the amount of money that a candidate may spend on their own campaign.
Ballot Measure 1 also does not limit the amount of money that a third-party group can independently spend to support or oppose a candidate. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision, known as Citizens United, allows unlimited amounts of spending by groups that don’t coordinate directly with candidates.
Also this year, the Supreme Court ruled that political parties may spend unlimited amounts of money in coordination with federal candidates. That decision may affect state races in the future.
Ballot Measure 1 is the consequence of a lengthy and successful legal challenge by a group of Republicans inside and outside the state.
Until 2021, Alaska had some of America’s lowest limits on financial donations to candidates — $500 per candidate, per year. Those were installed by a 2006 ballot measure that passed with the support of 73% of participating voters.
But a group of Republicans challenged the legality of those limits in 2015, arguing that they unduly restricted free speech. The case was appealed and remanded multiple times before a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the limits in July 2021.
Gov. Mike Dunleavy declined to appeal the issue further, and the limits were removed ahead of Dunleavy’s successful re-election campaign the following year.
In 2022 and 2024, state lawmakers attempted but failed to pass a bill reimposing limits. Legislators this year passed a bill identical to Ballot Measure 1, but Gov. Mike Dunleavy vetoed that bill.
In his veto statement, the governor said the new limits “would radically tilt in the favor of the wealthy when it comes to elected office.”
The lack of limits has had its biggest effect on Alaska’s races for governor. In 2022, all three leading candidates — Dunleavy, independent Bill Walker and Democratic candidate Les Gara — recorded large contributions from individual donors.
Most of the other 15 candidates in the governor race, including most of the Republicans, have taken similarly large donations, but not to the extent that the leading Democrats have.
The Republican candidate who has raised the most money, podiatrist Matt Heilala, has spent more than $1.25 million on his own campaign. Click Bishop, a Republican who has raised a middling amount of money, is also being boosted by a large union-funded third-party group. Those latter types of spending would not be affected by Ballot Measure 1.
Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom and Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher listen to testimony at a July 27, 2026, in Anchorage hearing on Ballot Measure 2. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)
Alaskans will decide whether to overhaul the state’s elections system with a ballot measure that would repeal ranked choice voting, reinstate closed primaries and repeal campaign disclosure rules established in 2020.
Ballot Measure 2, which will appear on the ballots as 24ESEG, is one of two ballot measures that will appear on the general election ballot in November. Ballot Measure 1, which would impose campaign contribution limits, will be on the primary ballot on Aug. 18.
Officials with the Alaska Division of Elections held the first of two public hearings to gather input on the ballot measures Monday, as required by law. Campaign supporters, opponents and Alaskans called in from around the state to the Anchorage Legislative Information Office to share their views at an event chaired by Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom. A second day of public hearings for public testimony will be held on Aug. 5.
A similar ballot measure to repeal ranked choice voting was voted down in 2024 by 737 votes out of 320,985 cast. Supporters quickly restarted the campaign in 2025 and collected over 34,000 signatures, required to place the issue before Alaska voters again in 2026. The measure’s primary sponsors are Republican gubernatorial candidate Bernadette Wilson, along with Judy Eledge of Anchorage and Ken McCarty of Eagle River.
If approved, Ballot Measure 2 would repeal changes established by a 2020 ballot measure. It would repeal the nonpartisan, open primary system and ranked choice general election.
Currently, Alaska voters of any party affiliation can vote for any candidate in the primary election. If approved, the measure would revert the state’s elections to the closed primary system, where only one candidate from each party advances to the general election, and parties choose who may participate in that party’s vote.
The measure would also repeal some campaign finance disclosure rules. It would repeal limits enacted by the ballot measure passed in 2020 so that individuals and entities who contribute more than $2,000 to candidates or campaigns must disclose the true source, as defined by law. According to the ballot summary from the Division of Elections, the measure would remove spending limits and disclosure rules, including for digital ads, out-of-state donations, undisclosed donations and true source donations. It would also change the definition of “campaign expenditure” and remove some fines for violations.
If passed, the changes would cost the state an estimated $2.6 million to implement, according to the Alaska Public Offices Commission.
Supporters of the ballot measure, called the “Repeal Now” campaign, argue that ranked choice voting is confusing and burdensome to voters, and advocated for returning to the pre-2020 system.
Bethany Marcum, treasurer for Repeal Now, testified at the hearing on Monday, advocating for each voter to have a single vote for a candidate or measure. “Our campaign is about one person, one vote. That’s been the bedrock of the American Republic for the last 250 years,” she said.
Marcum argued ranking choices for candidates is complicated and voters complain about making mistakes. She objected to the tabulation system of counting up to four ranked choices.
If voters do not fill out second, third or fourth candidates, or all their candidates have been eliminated, their ballot is set aside, which Marcum objected to, falsely claiming “ballots were trashed.” But voters’ top choice candidates are counted.
She also blamed ranked choice voting for delaying election results. She said campaign disclosure rules set in 2020 hadn’t prevented “dark money,” or money whose source is secret, from flowing to Alaska, and she said the campaign finance reporting requirements are burdensome to smaller campaigns.
“So, in our opinion, the money overwhelms the disclaimer, and Alaskans recognize this. Smaller campaigns have to spend up to a third more of their money and their ad space on these disclaimers that do nothing to inform the public,” Marcum said.
Opponents of Ballot Measure 2 argue the ranked choice voting system gives voters more choices at the ballot box, and deters extreme partisans while encouraging candidates to appeal to a wider variety of voters. They argued against repealing campaign disclosure rules they say will welcome more Outside, undisclosed “dark money” into Alaska elections.
Scott Kendall and Julia Anastos present the No on 2 argument at the Anchorage hearing held by the Division of Elections on July 27, 2026. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)
Scott Kendall testified on behalf of the No on 2 campaign, registered as a group called Protect Alaska’s Elections. He argued the system is not too complicated for voters, and Alaska has implemented ranked choice voting well. He countered that delays in election results are caused by unavoidable delays in the U.S. Postal Service, as nearly a quarter of the state’s precincts must vote by mail.
“The mail system in Alaska is what it is,” he said. “We have to wait for ballots to be brought in from across the state before we can tabulate. Again, that has nothing to do with ranked choice voting, because as those of us who have participated know, the actual tabulation process takes mere seconds. It’s nearly instantaneous.”
Kendall argued repealing campaign disclosure rules would have a larger negative impact on Alaska than repealing open primaries and ranked choice voting.
“Ballot Measure 2 is a bit of a Trojan horse … repealing RCV, that is only a fraction of what the measure does,” he said. “No longer will there be a ban on dark money. In fact, any outside billionaire will be able to give money to another organization, and launder their contributions to that organization. And finally, it lowers or actually removes fines for certain campaign finance misbehavior.”
Kendall also argued returning to closed primaries would give political parties the authority to determine who can vote in their primary elections.
“In a state like Alaska, where two-thirds of all voters do not register with either party, the thought of taking publicly funded elections and allowing the political parties to choke off who can participate in them should be abhorrent,” he said.
Alaskans who called in or testified in person at the hearing on Monday were split, arguing vehemently in support and against the ballot measure.
Several testifiers in support of the measure said ranked choice voting is too complicated.
“We don’t need confusion,” said Mark Spohn, calling in from Willow to testify. “Anytime you have confusion, your elections aren’t as accurate and honest. It’s completely ridiculous. Let’s get rid of the insanity and go back to one person, one vote.”
Testifiers opposing the measure objected to repealing campaign finance disclosures.
Bryan Schroder, a 24-year veteran of the U.S. Coast Guard and former U.S. Attorney in Alaska, urged keeping the current disclosure requirements and ranked choice system to encourage bipartisanship.
“Now, when our candidates campaign, they have to appeal to a majority of voters, not just the hardcore wing of any political party,” he said. “We have a Legislature where more members are willing to work together to do what is best for Alaskans, actively choosing against the do-nothing tribal politics that frustrates so many of us, and as a colleague of mine put it, ‘the workhorses are coming to the front, not the show horses.’”
Several testifiers objected to returning to the closed party system, where voters could have to register with a particular party to vote for their candidate, including Michelle Vasquez of Soldotna. She said that forced her to vote only a Republican ballot, and restricted her from voting for other candidates.
“And that drove me crazy,” she said. “So I was very happy when I changed my party affiliation to unaffiliated like five years ago, so that I could vote however I wished without any confusion or misunderstandings or having to change my voter registration.”
Both the yes and no campaigns criticize each others’ out-of-state funders
Supporters and opponents of the ballot measure criticized each other at the hearing for taking Outside funding from big donors.
Both campaigns have raised large sums of money since 2025, with contributions from out-of-state political action committees, according to public filings with the Alaska Public Offices Commission and Federal Elections Commission.
The “Repeal Now” campaign supporting the measure has raised $1.1 million to date.
The majority of funds, $846,000, have been donated by the Aurora Action Network, a Super PAC based in Wisconsin whose major donors include finance billionaire Jeff Yass of Pennsylvania.
Other Alaska-affiliated contributors to the Aurora Action Network include Jeff Hildebrand, CEO of Hilcorp; John Binkley, trustee of the Alaska Permanent Fund Corp.; Treg Taylor, Republican gubernatorial candidate and former attorney general, and Deena Bishop, state education commissioner, according to FEC filings.
The opposing No on 2 campaign has raised $5.75 million to date.
The campaign’s largest donor is Unite America PAC, Inc — contributing $4 million to date — a Colorado-based venture fund founded by a professor and advocate Charles Whelan, focused on funding elections reforms, in particular creating open, all-candidate primaries. Its biggest donors include Jason Carroll, a New York financier; Kent Thiry, a Colorado philanthropist who co-chairs Unite America; and David Randolph Peeler, an executive with the private equity firm Berkshire Partners.
The campaign has also received $1.5 million from Voters from the American Center, Inc., a Washington D.C. political nonprofit that supports lobbying “to advance democratic participation and strengthen democracy’s core systems,” according to a philanthropic trade outlet, philanthropy.org.
The Alaska House gavels in for the third special session in 2026 on the proposed AKLNG gasline project, with House Speaker Rep. Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham, presiding and Reps. DeLena Johnson, R-Palmer, and Sara Hannan, D-Juneau, in attendance on July 27, 2026. (Photo by Corinne Smith/Alaska Beacon)
The Alaska Legislature opened its third special session of 2026 with no bill, few lawmakers and little hope.
A handful of legislators gathered Monday in the state Capitol at Juneau to begin a 30-day session called by Gov. Mike Dunleavy after the failure of a compromise bill that would have provided a tax break to the developer of the proposed trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline.
But on Monday, the governor had no new alternative bill ready for legislators as the special session began.
In a statement on social media, Dunleavy said, “Before reintroducing the legislation, my administration is going to continue meeting with all parties to determine the best path forward to an agreement.”
Answering questions about those meetings, the governor’s office said it had nothing more to add.
‘I don’t believe the Legislature can do much now’
The pipeline’s lead developer, Glenfarne, has said that a reduction in the state’s petroleum property tax is necessary for it to obtain the financing needed to build the pipeline.
Passing a bill into law requires 21 votes in the House, 11 in the Senate, and the assent of the governor. In a special session called by the governor, lawmakers may only work on topics designated by the governor. In Dunleavy’s latest proclamation, he limited work to the proposed gas pipeline.
“It sounded like (the governor) is hopeful that there could be maybe some new developments, but that’s going to be his negotiation. I don’t believe the Legislature can do much now at this point,” said House Minority Leader DeLena Johnson, R-Palmer, at the Capitol on Monday.
With no legislation to consider, members of the House and Senate held pro forma “technical sessions” before adjourning until Friday, when a bill could be available.
Because no substantive action was expected on Monday, only two legislators traveled to Juneau on the first day of the special session. Speaker of the House Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham, and Johnson were joined by Rep. Sara Hannan, D-Juneau. In the Senate, Sen. Jesse Kiehl, D-Juneau, presided over an otherwise empty chamber.
The state House has 40 members, the state Senate has 20.
Down the hall from the House and Senate chambers, a group of cruise ship tourists watched a video about the history of the Capitol in a darkened committee room. At 10 a.m., there were more tourists than legislators.
Edgmon said that until the governor introduces a substantive bill, legislators will mostly stay away from the Capitol.
“The plan in the House is to have technical sessions, as you just saw, and to save time and certainly money (by) not bringing the Legislature back until we have something in front of us that’s worthy of bringing the entire body back … because it’s quite expensive to bring the Legislature back into session,” he said.
Typically, legislators have budgeted $1 million for a 30-day special session.
Fate of ‘pass-through’ tax is a key question
The current deadlock in negotiations is a “pass through entities tax” that would levy a form of the state’s corporate income tax on privately owned oil and gas companies, including Armstrong Oil and Gas, HEX, and Hilcorp.
That tax was added to the bill in the Senate to garner the votes of senators who are skeptical of the underlying bill, which would replace the state’s petroleum property tax with a tax on gas pumped through the as-yet-unbuilt pipeline.
The result would be billions of dollars in deferred tax revenue over a 30-year period for the state and municipalities along the route. But some lawmakers worry that the switch could also result in lower oil and gas production taxes because of writeoffs available for companies who spend on oil and gas infrastructure.
The new tax would offset that possibility, but has drawn opposition from the governor and from legislators who worry about the effects of imposing a tax on companies that are actively drilling for oil and gas within the state.
Hilcorp is expected to drill 27 gas wells in Cook Inlet this year, at a time when the region is facing a shortage of natural gas. Some legislators say Hilcorp lobbying was a key factor in the defeat of the compromise bill earlier this month.
Edgmon said he spoke with Dunleavy on Sunday. With the state’s primary election on Aug. 18 and general elections in November, time is running out for any chance of action, Edgmon said.
“Every day that goes by gets that much more difficult to reconvene the Legislature and to get them refocused on a bill,” Edgmon said.
“And so I think the clock is ticking very loudly right now, and the governor realizes that.”
Dunleavy cannot run for another term in office, and January will see a new governor and a new Legislature. If a bill doesn’t pass before then, Johnson said, “general fatigue” about the idea of a gas pipeline is part of the reason why.
“I think it’s the years of times that we tried to take this up and we never moved it forward. And so there’s just this sense that somehow it can’t be done,” she said. “I mean, I know there’s a sense of having this roadblock out there, and I think that’s kind of pervasive.”
House Judiciary committee chair Rep. Andrew Gray, D-Anchorage, and committee members Rep. Ashley Carrick, D-Fairbanks and Rep. Mia Costello, R-Anchorage, listen to Carol Beecher, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, answer questions about the division’s decision to disqualify a U.S. Senate candidate at a hearing on July 22, 2026. (Photo by Kyle Johansen for Rep. Gray’s office)
Members of the House Judiciary and State Affairs committees questioned Alaska Division of Elections director Carol Beecher on Wednesday about the state’s response to a U.S. Senate candidate with the same name as the incumbent — Dan Sullivan. It was the second investigatory hearing on the subject after elections officials failed to appear at an initial hearing in June. Alaska Lieutenant Governor Nancy Dahlstrom, who oversees the division, declined an invitation to appear.
At issue was the state’s decision to disqualify the U.S. Senate candidate Dan J. Sullivan of Petersburg and its determination that he was not a “good faith” candidate. The Alaska Supreme Court nixed that decision in late June.
Carol Beecher, the new director of the Alaska Division of Elections, answers questions from reporters on Thursday, Feb. 16, 2023. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
Beecher testified for nearly two hours and defended the division’s actions from the choice to disqualify Sullivan to the choice to list him without a party affiliation on the primary ballot. She also answered questions about how 3,500 Alaskan residents received notices that they have inactive voter status pending verification of citizenship.
Since the first legislative hearing, the Sullivan from Petersburg challenged the state’s decision and the fast-tracked case reached the Alaska Supreme Court. The court upheld a lower court’s ruling that Sullivan was eligible and said the division did not have the authority to add additional eligibility requirements, like whether a candidate was acting in “good faith,” beyond what is outlined in the U.S. Constitution.
Lawmakers raised concerns about how the division chose to list the candidates on the primary ballot. They asked Beecher about why the division chose to list the challenger as “Sullivan, Daniel J, Jr.” without his party affiliation as a registered Republican. It listed the incumbent senator as “Sullivan, Dan S.” and identified him as the incumbent and a Republican.
The two Sullivans are among 16 candidates for the U.S. Senate seat, including Democratic former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola, in the primary election on August 18. The top four vote-getters will advance to the general election on November 3.
Beecher defended the division’s position that Sullivan was running with the purpose to confuse voters. She cited complaints filed by national and state Republican groups, Sullivan’s party affiliation as Republican and campaign materials as evidence of his intention to mimic the U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan and confuse Alaska voters.
“The division acted then to prevent manipulation of the ballot and to protect voters from purposeful confusion, consistent with its responsibility to maintain fair, neutral, and trustworthy elections,” she said.
She noted that the division’s action was unprecedented, but said the situation merited such a response. “The division understood all along that this action could be challenged in court, and recognizes the court’s authority to review these important questions,” she said.
Judiciary committee chair Rep. Andrew Gray, D-Anchorage, had several questions about how the division determined Sullivan was not a “good faith” candidate. “Where is the evidence that he did this to trick voters, to mislead the voters whom we are here to protect?” he asked.
“The information that we were presented with painted for us a picture of someone who was trying to confuse the ballot,” Beecher replied.
Gray probed the division’s criteria later in the hearing.“In your opinion, Director Beecher, what does it mean for a candidate to have a good faith intention to serve?” Gray asked.
“In my opinion, that it would be someone who actually wants to win, and is running because they want to to get the seat,” Beecher replied. “And in this situation, all of the facts that were presented to the division were that this was an individual who was not running to be what I would call a true candidate. This individual was running to confuse the ballot. It was an intentional attempt to gain access to the ballot for the purpose of confusing.”
Lawmakers also raised this issue of of how the candidate was listed on the primary ballot after the state Supreme Court ruling. The challenger was listed as “Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr.” when he has publicly stated he goes by his first name as “Dan.”
Beecher said it was a choice by the division. “And it’s a bit of first in time, first in place, that Dan Sullivan has already been on the ballot prior, as Dan Sullivan is known as Dan Sullivan,” she said, referring to the incumbent senator. “So it was simply a way to differentiate between the two.”
Rep. Genevieve Mina, D-Anchorage, asked Beecher about the division’s decision not to list Sullivan’s Republican party affiliation.
Beecher said she believes it was also within the division’s authority to do so. “Whether or not it has to be on the ballot, we believe that has been left to the discretion of the division, and in line with that, we made that determination,” she said.
“It also could still be litigated,” Beecher added.
Rep. Ashley Carrick, D-Fairbanks and chair of the House State Affairs Committee, said she was concerned about the precedent and the agency’s discretion to remove party information that could be informative for voters.
“Having his party affiliation may help those voters feel like they’re more informed and directed to a candidate they would rather support,” she said. “But not having his affiliation included there seems to provide less information and be more confusing.”
Campaign signs for Democrats Matt Schultz and Tom Begich are seen in a Midtown Anchorage yard on July 17, 2026. Schultz mounted his campaign to oust Republican U.S. Rep. Nick Begich. But he endorsed Nick’s uncle, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Tom Begich, a former state senator. Schultz suspended his campaign on July 17 and urged supporters to rally behind independent Bill Hill. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)
On July 17, the leading Democratic candidate in Alaska’s U.S. House race suspended his campaign and announced his support for independent House candidate Bill Hill.
In an interview last week, Democrat Matt Schultz said his decision didn’t come from a lack of desire or a lack of support — it was simply a matter of money.
“One of the most disturbing things about the election process is how much … is determined by money, and I did not have a viable financial path forward,” Schultz said on July 17.
Schultz will remain on the ballot for the Aug. 18 statewide primary but is expected to withdraw after the results become final.
Campaign finance reports through June 30 showed Schultz’s campaign with $470,681 in cash on hand. Hill’s campaign had $702,626. Incumbent Republican Rep. Nick Begich’s campaign had more than $3.2 million.
Begich and Hill are also being boosted by third-party groups. In Hill’s case, Wheel Dog PAC is preparing to spend more than $1 million and has already sent mailers to voters across the state. The National Republican Congressional Committee and other groups are spending similarly to back Begich.
While Schultz has lagged in financial support, public opinion polling in the spring found him significantly ahead of Hill in Alaska’s top-four primary, but in head-to-head polling, Hill appeared to perform better against Begich than Schultz did. Neither polled ahead of Begich.
In Alaska’s election system, voters will pick one of the 14 U.S. House candidates during the Aug. 18 statewide primary. The top four vote-getters, regardless of party, advance to the general election.
“If I had made it through the primary, which — I think there’s a real good chance I would have been the the frontrunner — but I would not have had the the financial war chest required to take on Nick Begich, and the priority here is to make sure that Nick Begich does not get back into office,” Schultz said.
As a candidate, Schultz has been a solid progressive. Speaking to the Beacon and writing in a column to the Anchorage Daily News, he said he feels that some Democrats are too motivated to seek a political “middle,” even when it doesn’t make sense.
“I think that shifting to the middle is not inherently virtuous. When we think about history, there are issues like slavery or in World War II when the Nazi Party was on the rise — there’s no value in saying ‘let’s be a moderate and meet them in the middle and compromise,’” he said. “I think this is a time in history right now. The reason I was so motivated to flip the House of Representatives is because the Republican Party is pulling us into fascism. They’re attacking our democracy and handing over our freedom to billionaires and trillionaires. The stakes are so very high, and yet the folks on our side of the playing field here seem to be willing to kneel and beg for our rights instead of standing and demanding them, and I think that happened in my race as well.”
Alaska’s labor unions have backed Hill, as did the Alaska Center, a progressive environmental and pro-democracy group that hasn’t supported an independent for U.S. House since Alyse Galvin in 2020.
The Alaska Democratic Party itself declined to endorse Schultz during its April convention in Cordova, leaving open the possibility that it would support Hill instead of a party member.
The week before Schultz’s decision, the National Republican Campaign Committee signaled that it was preparing to run ads in favor of Schultz to boost his performance and help Begich.
Both Schultz and Hill released statements denouncing the strategy.
Under Alaska’s general-election system, voters are asked to rank their preferred candidates. The candidate with the lowest number of No. 1 votes is eliminated, and that candidate’s supporters have the option to give the vote to a second choice instead.
“Matt Schultz and the Alaska Democrat Party have been outspoken supporters for ranked choice voting, but when given the opportunity to present the public with their own candidate they chose to withdraw,” said Paul Smith, Begich’s campaign manager. “Despite raising nearly $1 million, making the case to progressives and traveling throughout the state, Democrats have proven that they support ranked choice voting only when it advantages them. Regardless, Alaskan voters will reject these political games and re-elect the most productive freshman Congressman on record, Congressman Nick Begich.”
Since 2022, when the system was used for the first time, statistics show that a significant number of voters have chosen to not rank a second or subsequent choice.
Hill and Schultz each said they believe that ads from the NRCC could have engendered bad feelings, reducing the odds that supporters would rank the other candidate.
Schultz said his top priority is ending Republican control of the U.S. House, and that holds whether or not he is elected.
“Once I recognized that I didn’t have a viable path forward, then it didn’t really matter what I’m being asked to sacrifice. I had to sacrifice (my candidacy) to make sure that we prevent that majority,” he said.
Reached by phone last week, Hill thanked Schultz.
“In his statement, he made it clear that it’s not about me or him. It’s about giving Alaskans the best chance to beat Nick Begich this fall,” he said.
“I think we’re both aligned on a lot of things that are not going right for Alaskans,” Hill said. “You look at things like, well, the cost of gas and groceries, the loss of health care to a lot of Alaskans who just can’t afford it with the loss of the (Affordable Care Act) premiums. There’s a lot of things that are going on in the House right now that are not benefiting Alaskans, and we definitely need to make sure that, in the long run, that there’s a change made there.”
One major difference between Hill and Schultz is that while Schultz sought to eliminate Republican control of the House, Hill is willing to join a Republican majority under certain circumstances.
“I am not committing to who I’m going to vote for (Speaker of the House, if elected), but I will tell you right up front that I’m not going to vote for Mike Johnson to be Speaker because he does not represent my values at all, and he has been the lead in doing things that have impacted Alaska negatively,” Hill said.
Asked what he will do to earn the votes of Schultz supporters, Hill said he understands that they may have concerns about his candidacy, “but I will assure them that I am there to make sure that we have a government that’s going to work on providing Alaskans with the opportunities and tools needed to build good lives, and that means things like making sure everybody has health care, to make sure that our school systems are good and solid, and providing the education that our that our children need.”
Photo courtesy of Peter Metcalfe via his Facebook post
NOTN- Residents living near the Governor’s Mansion are calling on city officials to address their safety concerns surrounding an “armed encampment” following an incident earlier this month where a young black bear was shot and later euthanized by the Department of Fish and Game due to its fatal injuries.
According to a post on the Juneau Community Collective, concerned residents living above Capital Avenue have sent a letter to the City and Borough of Juneau and nearby property owners saying the July 9 incident has prompted renewed concerns about conditions at the encampment.
The post described the site as an “armed encampment” and said residents are seeking a long-term solution to what they say are ongoing public safety issues and “outrages’ in the neighborhood.
Residents are asking others who have witnessed incidents associated with the encampment to come forward.
Below is the full letter written by Peter Metcalfe with the exclusion of addresses and personal information for resident’s privacy.
To the officials and offices named above:
The encampment on Capital Avenue, a longtime obnoxious nuisance, has become a threat to public safety.
Earlier this month, a person living in that camp shot a young black bear that was up a tree at the edge of the encampment. The animal was grievously wounded, and a Fish and Game officer had to track it down to put the young bear out of its misery.
The shots that wounded the bear were fired upward, likely toward the Fosbee, a 30-unit apartment building directly above the site. The apartment building is in our densely populated Governor’s Mansion neighborhood.
We live directly across from the Fosbee Apartments. We ask that the squatter camp on Capital Ave. be removed before someone is seriously hurt.
According to the CBJ Parcel Viewer, this encampment is on city land and shares boundaries with property owned by AEL&P, the Central Council, and a privately owned parcel (701 Capital Ave). All these properties are adversely affected by the encampment and its widely scattered piles of garbage, which are irresistible to bears.
This did not come out of nowhere. For years, the camp has created conditions no neighborhood should have to endure: clouds of toxic smoke, garbage piles measured by the truckload, and human and household waste left directly on the ground. Discarded hypodermic needles litter the area around the camp and have been dragged with other refuse by bears into the surrounding neighborhood, presenting hazards to people, pets, and wildlife.
When one of us stopped by to ask two of the occupants about the toxic smoke, their twitchy behavior was consistent with heavy methamphetamine or similar stimulant use.
Frequently, in the pre-dawn hours, residents are woken by disturbances from the site, where drugs are used openly and what appear to be drug sales occur. Now that we know the people in this camp are armed and willing to fire weapons with no regard for who is nearby, we have reason to fear for our safety.
Since the encampment is on city-owned property, CBJ clearly has the authority and responsibility to act, and its ownership removes any question of deferring to another party. The city’s own guidance calls for intervention once an encampment repeatedly harms the surrounding community, with trash accumulation and open drug use named as the triggers. This camp crossed that line years ago and has now escalated to gunfire toward occupied homes. Recent court decisions have also made clear that CBJ may enforce limits on camping on public land, so this is well within its authority.
Clearing the camp by itself will not fix this. The city has collaborated with AEL&P to remove encampments like this that have crossed the line, and with the Central Council to clean up this site.
We are now asking the city, through the Division of Lands & Resources and the Police Department, to clear the Capital Avenue camp, clean up the site, and then secure the area against re-encampment so that this stops being a recurring hazard, and to coordinate any support services the occupants may need as part of that process.
Photographs documenting current conditions at the site are attached to this letter.
We would appreciate a written response identifying who is handling this matter and what will be done. Thank you for your attention to a serious hazard in the heart of our community.
Respectfully,
Sandra and Peter Metcalfe, and on behalf of the following residents of the Governor’s Mansion neighborhood.
CBJ- The City and Borough of Juneau Flood Information Hotline is now available during weekdays. Residents can call the hotline with non-emergency questions and concerns related to the 2026 glacial lake outburst flood. The hotline is available at 907-500-0890 on Mondays through Fridays from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Once Suicide Basin is filled, the hotline will extend operating hours to include Saturdays and Sundays from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Once release has begun – and a wireless emergency alert text message goes out – the hotline will move to 24/7 operations through the event.
Wooden gavel with books in background. Law and justice concept
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
Wooden gavel with books in background. Courtesy of Alaska Beacon.
Two of Alaska’s largest labor organizations have sued Gov. Mike Dunleavy for failing to promptly fill two seats on the board that governs the state’s public employee pension plans.
The Alaska AFL-CIO, National Education Association-Alaska and five individuals filed suit Wednesday in Anchorage Superior Court, seeking a court order that would require the governor to fill seats on the Alaska Retirement Management Board that are designated for the teachers’ and public employees’ unions.
According to the complaint, the seats have been vacant since March 1. The unions sent lists of possible nominees to the governor four months before that, on Dec. 1.
Under state law, “a vacancy on the board of trustees shall be promptly filled.”
The unions sent a warning letter to the governor’s office in late May about the issue.
Stephen Cox, the attorney general designee whose confirmation was rejected by the Alaska Legislature this year, responded to the message. Now working as Counsel to the Governor, Cox said the law reserving seats for the unions “warrants further analysis, as it potentially encroaches upon the Governor’s constitutional appointment authority.”
Cox said the governor will be requesting a formal legal opinion from acting Attorney General Cori Mills.
“The administration does not comment on lawsuits,” said Jeff Turner, the governor’s communications director, when reached for comment.
The Beacon contacted the Department of Law on Monday afternoon as well, seeking comment about the lawsuit. It did not respond by 8 a.m. the following day.
The plaintiffs are being represented by attorney Scott Kendall, who has frequently fought cases against the Dunleavy administration.
By phone on Monday afternoon, Kendall said the issue is “very important” because the board handles billions of dollars’ worth of investments on behalf of state residents.
Two board meetings have already taken place without union representatives.
“This isn’t the, ‘Oops, this slipped through the cracks sort of issue.’ The new nominees were put forward by both unions three months before the prior terms expired. Those filings were acknowledged by the Department of Revenue, which handles this. So everything was done timely,” he said.
In the complaint, the plaintiffs state that if the issue goes to trial, Cox should not have a role because state law requires the Department of Law — through staff attorneys or hired counsel — to represent the state in legal issues.
Kendall said the legality of laws constraining a governor’s appointment powers have been repeatedly tried in court and upheld.
“To be honest, it’s befuddling. There’s a very clear statute. There’s a very clear regulation. They say these people shall be appointed promptly, and they shall be from lists from these two groups,” he said. “So I think it’s quite honestly bizarre that we’re even in this situation, but here we are nonetheless.”
