A copy of the Alaska Constitution is seen on Thursday, July 28, 2022. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
In Anchorage Superior Court on Wednesday, attorneys for the state of Alaska defended Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s decision to name a former attorney to a public seat on Alaska’s judge-picking board, saying the choice was within the governor’s powers under the Alaska Constitution.
The governor’s choice of John W. Wood has been challenged by lawsuits filed by Juneau resident James Forrer and Alaskans for Fair Courts, a group devoted to the defense of the court system as an independent, apolitical branch of government.
They argue that if Wood’s appointment stands, it would give attorneys four of the six seats on the Alaska Judicial Council, the state board that accepts applications for judicial vacancies, selects nominees and forwards them to the governor for final selection.
Under the Alaska Constitution, the council consists of three attorneys picked by the Alaska Bar Association and three non-lawyer members of the public appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature. In ties, the chief justice of the Alaska Supreme Court may cast a seventh vote.
The state contends that Wood is no longer an attorney and that he was a valid pick for an open seat. Both sides have asked for summary judgment, allowing Judge Yvonne Lamoureux to decide the case short of trial.
Wood’s appointment has been challenged on three main points. First, was the governor’s choice a valid recess appointment? Second, is Wood an attorney? Third, was he employed by the state at the time of the appointment?
Dunleavy appointed Wood in a letter dated May 29, filling a position that had been vacant since March, when a prior appointment expired. That was after the Legislature had adjourned for the year.
Under the Alaska Constitution and state law, a governor may fill vacant positions on boards and commissions when the Legislature is out of session, but the appointee will be subject to confirmation during the next regular legislative session.
Attorney James Reeves, arguing on behalf of Alaskans for Fair Courts, said his group contends that because a position on the Judicial Council became vacant during the legislative session, Wood may not begin serving until a confirmation vote takes place.
That contradicts existing practice, and Alaska Department of Law attorney Claire C. Keneally said in court on Wednesday that “it’s also not supported by the history of the (Alaska) Constitution” or the clause of the constitution that deals with appointments that take place when the Legislature is out of session.
“This is not a new or novel practice,” Keneally said of Dunleavy’s decision to not fill a March vacancy until May.
In 2015, then-Gov. Bill Walker filled a public seat on the Alaska Judicial Council in October; that seat had also been vacant since March, when the Legislature was in session.
Because of that timing issue, Keneally argued both in court and in writing, the case should be dismissed. Other arguments would be ripe for discussion only if the Legislature approves Wood’s appointment.
Wood was granted a law license in 1972, but it was suspended in 2000 because of a failure to pay dues to the Alaska Bar Association. Under a sworn affidavit, Wood said he has not practiced law since 2000 and has no intention of practicing law.
But in court on Wednesday, Reeves with Alaskans for Fair Courts said, “the Constitutional Convention history, which both sides have cited, indicates that the framers who discussed this understood the word non-attorney to mean layman or lay member. Is a lawyer who chooses not to practice law a layman?”
Reeves and attorney Joseph Geldhof, who was representing James Forrer in a separate but combined lawsuit also challenging Wood’s appointment, argued that because Wood held a state consulting contract at the time of his appointment, he was ineligible to serve on the Judicial Council.
The contract calls for Wood to advise the Alaska Department of Law on labor relations matters and to provide advice to the governor’s office when needed.
The Alaska Constitution states that no member of the Judicial Council may hold “any other office or position of profit under the United States or the state.”
But Keneally noted that the Alaska Supreme Court has previously interpreted that phrase to mean “salaried, non-temporary employment” with the state, and that other members of the Alaska Judicial Council, including some current members, have also held state contracts while serving on the council.
Lamoureux, who heard Wednesday’s arguments, said she intends to issue a written order within 30 days, the timeline requested by both sides of the case in order to allow a speedy appeal.
Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor speaks at a news conference on Thursday, Dec. 15, 2022, at the Alaska State Capitol in Juneau. (Photo by James Brooks / Alaska Beacon)
Treg Taylor, the former Alaska attorney general, is running for governor, he announced Wednesday morning.
“I have a four-and-a-half-year proven record as the attorney general of fighting crime, fighting Biden, and fighting for Alaska,” he said by phone.
In a campaign video and written statement, Taylor promoted himself as a “fearless conservative” who is the best successor to incumbent Gov. Mike Dunleavy, who is term-limited and unable to run for another four years in office.
Taylor is the 10th Republican and 11th candidate overall to enter the 2026 Alaska governor’s race.
The lone non-Republican in the race is former state Sen. Tom Begich, an Anchorage Democrat.
The other Republicans are Anchorage business owner Bernadette Wilson; former state Sen. Click Bishop of Fairbanks; former Alaska Revenue Commissioner Adam Crum; current state Sen. Shelley Hughes of Palmer, Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom of Eagle River; Matanuska-Susitna Borough Mayor Edna DeVries; podiatrist Matt Heilala of Anchorage; former teacher James William Parkin IV of Angoon; and Bruce Walden of Palmer.
“That is a ridiculous number of people in the race,” Taylor said when asked how he distinguishes himself from the other Republicans. “My answer is that I am the only candidate that has a proven record of fighting on behalf of Alaska. When I was the attorney general for four and a half years, I fought crime, I fought Biden, I fought for Alaska’s economic future. I’ve been heavily involved with the Trump administration. I helped draft Trump’s first day Executive Order unleashing Alaska’s extraordinary resource potential. And I’ve worked hard with the Trump administration, with (Department of the Interior), (Department of Justice), to see fulfillment of that executive order, which is going to push Alaska’s economic future.”
Asked about his campaign plans, Taylor said, “over the next few months, I’ll be hard at work, visiting with groups, visiting with individuals, working up support, fundraising. Obviously, I think the biggest tell in this race is going to be when everybody divulges their fundraising and our goal is to be at the top of that list, and I think we’ve got a good plan for getting there.”
Taylor, a longtime attorney with a degree from the Brigham Young University law school, worked in private practice and for Arctic Slope Regional Corp. before joining the Alaska Department of Law in 2018. He was head of the department’s civil division in 2021 when Dunleavy picked him as attorney general following the resignations of two other men amid sexual misconduct scandals.
Taylor, who has never held publicly elected office before, ran unsuccessfully for the Anchorage School Board in 2011 and for that city’s Assembly in 2016.
Taylor’s entry into the governor’s race marks an unusually early start for an Alaska campaign. Eight years ago, when now-Gov. Dunleavy launched his campaign in July 2017, he was the first high-profile candidate to challenge then-Gov. Bill Walker. This time around, three candidates had entered the race before June.
While the race is unusually crowded, additional candidates are still possible. Republican U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski has not ruled out a campaign, and a run by former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola, a Democrat, is also possible.
The Alaska State Capitol in downtown Juneau.
(Photo by Greg Knight/News of the North)
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
The Alaska State Capitol in downtown Juneau.
(Photo by Greg Knight/News of the North)
A panel of state lawmakers voted 9-2 on Wednesday to approve spending up to $100,000 on a lawsuit against Gov. Mike Dunleavy.
The lawsuit, if filed, would challenge the governor’s decision to press ahead with plans to create a cabinet-level Alaska Department of Agriculture via executive order.
The governor issued an executive order in January, but lawmakers rejected it in a 32-28 vote in March, saying they preferred to create it through legislation instead. Creating the department through legislation, legislative leaders said, would allow lawmakers to debate and structure the department how they wish, instead of relying on the governor’s plans alone.
Dunleavy disagrees with that approach and in August filed a new executive order during a 30-day special session.
The leaders of the House and Senate refused to accept the filing, saying that it was not within the governor’s power to issue an executive order during a special session, or to reintroduce an already-rejected order.
The governor’s office has said that lawmakers’ failure to vote down the new order means that it will take effect and allow the executive branch to create the cabinet-level department at the start of 2026.
Why does the Legislature’s failure to vote on the executive order matter?
Article III, section 23 of the Alaska Constitution says that executive orders automatically take effect “unless disapproved by resolution concurred in by a majority of the members in joint session.”
The question that could be decided in court is whether lawmakers need to take that vote if an order is issued during a special session. Is issuing an order in a special session even legal? And does it matter if the order is identical to one that’s already been issued and voted upon?
Under Article III, section 23 of the Alaska Constitution, the “legislature shall have sixty days of a regular session, or a full session if of shorter duration, to disapprove” executive orders that would make a change to the functions of the executive branch.
For almost two hours on Wednesday, members of the joint House-Senate Legislative Council — a committee that makes decisions for the Legislature when it is out of session — heard about the dispute behind closed doors, then debated it briefly in open session before voting.
“It’s a disagreement between the Legislature and the governor about whether or not the governor has the authority under the Alaska Constitution to introduce an executive order during a special session,” said Emily Nauman, director of Legislative Legal Services, the legal department for Alaska’s legislative branch.
Because the House and Senate’s presiding officers returned the order to the governor without taking action, “the governor is asserting that he will give effect to the executive order because it was not specifically rejected or disapproved by the legislature, thus causing a conflict in the interpretation of the Constitution between the Legislature and executive branch.”
Rep. Louise Stutes, R-Kodiak, voted in favor of authorizing the Legislature to prepare and, if necessary, file a pre-emptive lawsuit to keep the governor from enacting the executive order.
“It’s just a question, to me, of, we said, ‘No. Don’t you understand what no means?’”
Rep. Calvin Schrage, I-Anchorage, also voted in favor of moving forward with a lawsuit. He said that while there is still time for the governor to back away from his position, “I really see it as our prerogative to protect ourselves procedurally, and for us to do that, I believe we need to file litigation.”
The two votes against Wednesday’s proposal came from Reps. Chuck Kopp, R-Anchorage, and Mike Prax, R-North Pole.
Prax said he feels as if it could set a precedent that could allow lawmakers to disapprove of a future governor’s actions in a “more urgent” situation by simply not taking action.
“We would establish a precedent that the Legislature can do something by doing nothing, and that just does not seem like a very good practice to have established for any organization,” Prax said.
Sen. Jesse Kiehl, D-Juneau, said he doesn’t think that’s a correct interpretation of the lawsuit.
“With great respect to Representative Prax, no one is asserting here that the Legislature may act by inaction. What is before us is the question of whether the second shot at an executive order came in a way that the Constitution allows. I am convinced it did not.”
Kopp said he believes the governor may be prepared to change course on his executive action, and he’s reluctant to approve a lawsuit unless the governor attempts to take action and actually create the department.
“I would like to see us not initiate this until there’s some overt action by the administration that clearly indicates their intent to move unilaterally on this issue outside of the legislative process,” he said.
As of Friday, there was no estimate as to when a lawsuit might be filed.
Under the Alaska Constitution, the executive branch may not sue the legislative branch. Lawsuits by the Legislature against the governor are rare; this would be the fourth against Dunleavy during his two terms in office beginning in 2018.
In 2019, lawmakers sued the governor over a school funding issue. The governor won that case in the Alaska Supreme Court. The following year, legislators sued Dunleavy over their failure to consider some of his appointees during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency. The Alaska Supreme Court again ruled in Dunleavy’s favor.
In 2022, lawmakers filed a ‘friendly’ lawsuit against the governor in a dispute over the proper handling of oil and gas tax settlements. That dispute, which dates to the administration of Gov. Bill Walker, has yet to be decided by the Alaska Supreme Court.
Photo of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University event Wednesday, courtesy of AP
NOTN/AP- An Alaskan resident attending Brigham Young University said she was just feet away when conservative commentator Charlie Kirk was shot and killed during a campus event on Wednesday.
Margie Brown of Kasilof, Alaska, described the scene as “surreal” and said she is still processing what she witnessed.
“I’m okay. I definitely know I’m probably still in a little bit of shock,” Brown said in an interview with News of the North. “As he was setting his microphone down, you heard the crack, it was behind me, and I saw him, with my own eyes, get shot in the neck, and I knew it was the neck because there was a lot of blood.”
Videos posted to social media from Utah Valley University show Kirk speaking into a handheld microphone while sitting under a white tent emblazoned with the slogans “The American Comeback” and “Prove Me Wrong.” A single shot rings out and Kirk can be seen reaching up with his right hand as a large volume of blood gushes from the left side of his neck. Stunned spectators are heard gasping and screaming before people start to run away.
Brown, a history major finishing her last semester at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, said she and a friend signed up to attend Kirk’s appearance and they found seats near the stage, about 50 feet from where Kirk was speaking.
Immediately before the shooting, Kirk was taking questions from an audience member about mass shootings and gun violence.
Brown said she hit the ground hard before urging others to run.
FILE – Interior Secretary Doug Burgum listens as President Donald Trump speaks with reporters in the James Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House, Monday, Aug. 11, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein, File)
The rule was a key part of efforts under former President Joe Biden to refocus the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management, which oversees about 10% of land in the U.S. Adopted last year, it allowed public property to be leased for restoration in the same way that oil companies lease land for drilling.
Industry and agriculture groups were bitterly opposed to the Biden rule and lobbied Republicans to reverse it. States including North Dakota, where Burgum served as governor before joining Trump’s Cabinet, pursued a lawsuit hoping to block the rule.
Wednesday’s announcement comes amid a flurry of actions since Trump took office aimed at boosting energy production from the federal government’s vast land holdings, which are concentrated in Western states including Alaska, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.
Interior officials said the Biden rule had sidelined people who depend on public lands for their livelihoods and imposed unneeded restrictions.
Burgum said in a statement that it would have prevented thousands of acres from being used for energy and mineral productions, grazing and recreation. Overturning it “protects our American way of life and gives our communities a voice in the land that they depend on,” Burgum said.
“The previous administration’s Public Lands Rule had the potential to block access to hundreds of thousands of acres of multiple-use land – preventing energy and mineral production, timber management, grazing and recreation across the West,” Burgum said.
Environmentalists had largely embraced the rule that was finalized in April 2024. Supporters argued that conservation was a long-neglected facet of the land bureau’s mission under the 1976 Federal Lands Policy Management Act.
“The administration cannot simply overthrow that statutory authority because they would prefer to let drilling and mining companies call the shots,” said Alison Flint, senior legal director at The Wilderness Society.
While the bureau previously issued leases for conservation purposes in limited cases, it never had a dedicated program for it.
Critics said the change under Biden violated the “multiple use” mandate for Interior Department lands, by catapulting the “non-use” of federal lands — meaning restoration leases — to a position of prominence.
National Mining Association CEO Rich Nolan said Burgum’s proposal would ensure the nation’s natural resources are available to address rising energy demands and supply important minerals.
“This is a welcome change from the prior clear disregard for the legal obligation to balance multiple uses on federal lands,” Nolan said.
The rule also promoted the designation of more “areas of critical environmental concern” — a special status that can restrict development. It’s given to land with historic or cultural significance or that’s important for wildlife conservation.
In addition to its surface land holdings, the land bureau regulates publicly-owned underground mineral reserves — such as coal for power plants and lithium for renewable energy — across more than 1 million square miles (2.5 million square kilometers). The bureau has a history of industry-friendly policies and for more than a century has sold grazing permits and oil and gas leases.
The pending publication of Burgum’s proposal will kick off a 60-day public comment period.
House Republicans last week repealed land management plans adopted in the closing days of former President Joe Biden’s administration that restricted development in large areas of Alaska, Montana and North Dakota. Interior officials also announced a proposal aimed at increasing mining and drilling in Western states with populations of greater sage grouse. Biden administration officials proposed limits on development and prohibitions against mining to help protect the grouse.
The ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc. building in Anchorage is seen on June 28, 2023. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)
The top oil-producing company in Alaska is planning significant layoffs, it announced last week.
In a series of statements, the oil giant ConocoPhillips said it will be firing between 20% and 25% of its global workforce of about 13,000 people. That would mean between 2,600 and 3,250 layoffs worldwide.
“We are always looking at how we can be more efficient with the resources we have. As part of this process, we have informed employees that a 20% to 25% reduction in our global workforce, which includes employees and contractors, is anticipated. The majority of these reductions will take place in 2025,” said Rebecca Boys, director of external affairs for ConocoPhillips Alaska, on Thursday.
Boys declined to say how many people the company employs in Alaska, but prior documents published by the company say that it has “about 1,000 people in Alaska,” and of those, about 80% live in the state.
Altogether, the oil and gas industry employed 8,800 people in Alaska as of July, according to state statistics. If ConocoPhillips were to lay off a quarter of its Alaska workforce, it likely would reverse an upward trend for the oil and gas industry here.
Since bottoming out at 6,100 people in November 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency, the number of people employed by the oil and gas industry rose throughout President Joe Biden’s administration.
ConocoPhillips produces the most oil of any company operating on the North Slope and holds the second-most oil and gas lease area in the state.
According to state data, ConocoPhillips leases about 490,000 acres of Alaska land and water for oil and gas drilling. That’s behind only privately owned Hilcorp, whose holdings exceed 500,000 acres.
ConocoPhillips is developing the large Willow project in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, which is expected to begin producing oil in 2029.
According to the Alaska Division of Oil and Gas, ConocoPhillips is also planning to drill four exploration wells in other parts of the reserve this winter.
On its production side, ConocoPhillips was planning to drill 12 new production wells this year and next from the Kuparuk oilfield west of Prudhoe Bay.
An early voting station is set up in the atrium of the State Office Building in Juneau, Alaska on Monday, Aug. 5, 2024, the first day of early voting for the 2024 Alaska primary election. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
An early voting station is set up in the atrium of the State Office Building in Juneau, Alaska on Monday, Aug. 5, 2024, the first day of early voting for the 2024 Alaska primary election. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
A document submitted by the Alaska Division of Elections to the U.S. Department of Justice in response to a nationwide data request names 70 possible noncitizens who voted or attempted to vote in state or local Alaska elections since 2015.
Noncitizen voting remains extraordinarily rare, nationwide figures show, and Carol Beecher, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, said there is no evidence that noncitizen voting changed the result of last year’s elections here.
Ahead of last year’s elections, Donald Trump and other Republican politicians said they believed large numbers of non-U.S. citizens would seek to vote and influence the result of elections.
Since becoming president, Trump has asked Congress to impose citizenship checks on all potential voters. His Department of Justice has asked all 50 states for copies of their voter lists in order to create a national government database.
Alaska turned over its voter list and other documents to the U.S. Department of Justice last month.
In response to a public records request filed by the Alaska Beacon, the Alaska Division of Elections provided copies of documents it delivered to federal authorities.
Most of the documents, including a copy of the state’s official voter list, were already public. The voter list, for example, is available for purchase from any state elections office and doesn’t include sensitive information beyond a voter’s name, how often they’ve voted, and where they live.
The state’s inactive voter list — showing people whose voter registrations have been flagged for review and possible removal — is also a public record, but it isn’t commonly circulated. Inactive voters can’t cast a ballot without additional ID checks.
WHERE’S THE LIST?
Ordinarily, the Alaska Beacon publishes copies of the documents it obtains via public records requests, but in this case, we’re not publishing the list.
The inactive voter list contains the names and addresses of tens of thousands of Alaskans who have committed no wrongdoing, and we believe the potential harm outweighs the benefit of publishing it.
The list may become available from other sources or news outlets, but because people may be listed as “noncitizens” due to paperwork errors or other innocent mistakes, and because we aren’t able to verify the citizenship of all 541 people, we’re not publishing it.
The inactive voter list provided to the DOJ and to the Beacon is from August. It includes 541 people whose voter records were tagged “NC” for non-citizen.
But it’s not clear whether these Alaskans are noncitizens or were on the list because of mistakes.
Carol Beecher, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, said some people may have been erroneously labeled, so it isn’t correct to say that there were 541 noncitizens registered to vote.
“As we get more information, things change. So what I’m telling you today on a number may change tomorrow because of new information that we got,” Beecher said in an extended interview on Wednesday.
Stephen Kirch, the division’s spokesperson, said by email that “the DOE cannot say with any degree of certainty whether the current number of NC-coded entries is ‘abnormal’ or ‘unusual’ in a historical context. This is because the number is a moving target and not a static one; it is not tracked.”
The inactive voter list shows only people whose records have been flagged for additional attention and isn’t confirmation that they are not citizens. It may include people who filled out paperwork incorrectly or registered to vote shortly before becoming a citizen.
“It’s really hard to say whether this particular number (541) is a problem, because there’s so many questions behind even that particular number,” said Mara Kimmel, a former immigration attorney who now works as executive director of the Alaska chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.
That total also might miss noncitizens who are on the active voter list but haven’t yet been identified.
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 said she considers the “NC” tag to be “kind of like a file drawer. You put things into that file based on the status when you put it in there. But that could change.”
Kimmel said that the issue is “never as easy as it seems or as it would be framed. … Noncitizens voting has become a real political hot-button issue.”
In her experience, “there’s so much confusion and misinformation that is born out of a benign desire to participate in your new home.”
In Alaska, residents can register to vote by contacting the Alaska Division of Elections. Residents are also asked if they want to register when they update their driver’s license, get a new driver’s license, and apply for the annual Permanent Fund dividend.
As Beecher explained, if someone attests that they’re not a citizen through one method but says they are a citizen via a different method, that gets the attention of authorities.
“When we have gone in there and looked and contacted them, we have found that usually it was a mistake,” she said.
In other cases, particularly with the state’s “motor-voter” program, the mistake might come from a typo or someone’s misunderstanding of the rules, particularly if they don’t speak fluent English, as might be the case with new immigrants.
The Division of Elections doesn’t have investigative powers, which means voting officials rely on an applicant’s sworn oath about their citizenship. There’s no automatic double-checking, and it’s federally unconstitutional for the division to ask for proof of citizenship.
“All we get is the affirmation, and however frustrating that can be for everyone out there to say, ‘Well, why can’t you make sure?’ Well, we are not given that authority. So essentially, the division takes people at their word is really what it comes down to,” Beecher said.
If someone’s registration is flagged by a complaint or because of a discrepancy in the records, the division forwards the case to the Alaska Department of Law for investigation.
“We provide them with documents if they request that, as pursuant to an investigation, but if not, we may never hear from them,” Beecher said of the investigation.
Smith was born in American Samoa, an island territory in the South Pacific. Its residents are U.S. nationals — having some of the same legal rights as other Americans — but aren’t citizens.
During the subsequent investigation, Alaska State Troopers learned of 10 other American Samoans who had voted in Alaska. The state charged them with civil crimes in April, and this week, they were indicted.
All 10 are labeled noncitizens on the inactive voter list supplied to the Beacon and Department of Justice. They, and another 60 other people, are shown as having voted or attempted to vote at least once during the past 10 years.
It isn’t clear whether all of those ballots were actually counted. Many are labeled as “questioned,” meaning that they were subject to additional ID verification. Beecher said “it’s possible” that some were counted but that she didn’t have numbers.
She believes “very few” noncitizens have voted.
“I’m speaking very anecdotally, because I don’t have those kinds of numbers for you, but our sense is that it’s very small. And I think the underlying reason for that is because there is no nefarious intent out there to try to sway an election. It’s people who either — and this is my personal opinion — they’re confused about the rules or somehow ended up marking something that they didn’t understand,” Beecher said.
If the noncitizen-tagged voters on the inactive list had still been active, they would have represented just 0.09% of Alaska voters.
Last year, 340,981 Alaskans voted in the state’s November general election. The division’s inactive list shows six noncitizens either voted or attempted to vote in that election.
In Michigan, officials announced in April that they had found 16 credible cases of noncitizen voting out of about 5.7 million votes cast overall, or one per every 360,000 votes.
Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage and a supporter of election reform legislation in Alaska, noted that the rate of noncitizen voting in Alaska is likely well below the rate at which legitimate voters are being disqualified because of problems with the state’s absentee voting system.
“Any time you have people who are voting that shouldn’t be voting, that’s cause for concern,” Wielechowski said in an interview Wednesday.
“But at the same time, we’ve got hundreds of people that we know of, actually thousands of people who were disenfranchised,” he said, referring to the state’s regular practice of disqualifying absentee ballots because of submittal errors.
“In rural Alaska, we had 10% or 15% of the population in rural Alaska that was disenfranchised a couple of years ago, legitimate voters who were disenfranchised because of a bureaucratic technicality that’s not even checked. So I think there’s bigger problems,” Wielechowski said.
In 2023, Rep. Sarah Vance, R-Homer, proposed legislation that would have required the Division of Elections to cross-check the state’s voter rolls with a national citizenship database.
“I always like to presume innocence, but we have to put the safeguards in place, and by having the division use those databases as a check and balance, I think that’s a very simple way to make sure that we’re crossing our T’s and dotting I’s,” Vance said Wednesday.
She noted that current Speaker of the House Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham, won his 2006 primary election via a coin toss that followed a tied election.
“When you look at how slim some of our elections are, how tight races can be, these numbers matter,” she said.
The Alaska Senate stripped out Vance’s citizenship provision and passed a revised bill, but the Republican-led House failed by a single vote to take up the legislation on the last day of the regular session in 2024. The bill died at the end of the session, and lawmakers started anew this spring.
In recent years, the Alaska Department of Law has requested funding for a part-time elections investigator. The Legislature has not approved that request.
“We shouldn’t have anyone voting in our elections on any level who shouldn’t be,” Vance said.
“This is important and significant because we want to make sure that we protect the sovereignty of every individual’s vote,” she said.
Claire Stremple, seen here on Tuesday, Sept. 2, 2025, in Juneau, has been named the new editor of the Alaska Beacon. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
Claire Stremple, a former Alaska Beacon reporter and the current managing editor of public radio station KTOO-FM in Juneau, has been named the Beacon’s new editor.
The Beacon is an affiliate of the national nonprofit States Newsroom, which conducted the hiring process.
“We are thrilled to welcome Claire back to the Beacon as editor and look forward to more great reporting from our talented team under her leadership,” said Chris Fitzsimon, publisher and CEO of States Newsroom, in a written statement.
Stremple worked at the Beacon from spring 2023 through fall 2024 after prior work as a reporter for KTOO and KHNS-FM public radio in Haines.
While at KTOO, she won the Alaska Press Club’s 2022 Public Service Award for reporting that exposed a large backlog at Alaska’s Division of Public Assistance. After leaving the Beacon in 2024, she returned to KTOO as its editor.
Fitzsimon said he selected Stremple from among many applicants based on her leadership at KTOO, her prior experience at the Beacon, and her commitment to Alaska journalism.
By phone, Stremple said she wants to return to the Beacon because she enjoyed working with its reporters, “and I think that the capitol is a really exciting place to be doing state politics news reporting. I think there’s a lot of opportunity for investigative work there, and that prospect is really exciting to me. So it’s really exciting to be back with the team and be back in the capitol.”
She added, “I do want to continue Andrew Kitchenman’s work, because I think his work and vision have been pretty exemplary and impactful in the state and for other media networks.”
Alaska Beacon reporting is donation funded and can be reprinted for free by newspapers, radio stations, TV stations and news websites.
Stremple intends to work from Juneau, her current location, but said she could change locations if needs warrant.
The U.S. Supreme Court, on Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)
In 2012, Alaska State Troopers arrested Fairbanks pilot Ken Jouppi and seized his aircraft after charging him with bootlegging for shipping beer into the dry community of Beaver.
Now, after 13 years of legal disputes, the state’s decision to seize Jouppi’s airplane could be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Institute for Justice, a libertarian-leaning nonprofit public interest law firm, last week asked the Supreme Court to consider overturning an Alaska Supreme Court ruling from April. That ruling declared that the state’s decision to seize Jouppi’s plane was not an excessive fine for bootlegging.
The “petition for a writ of certiorari” — a formal document asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue — was filed last week, an official with the Institute confirmed on Tuesday afternoon.
The odds are against Jouppi — the Supreme Court takes only about 1% of the cases it receives. If cases filed with a fee waiver are excluded — those usually come from prisoners representing themselves in a last-ditch appeal — the acceptance rate is 5% or less.
Now 85 and retired, Jouppi was a longtime air taxi pilot in Fairbanks when he planned to ferry a passenger and her groceries from that hub city to Beaver, a village in the Interior.
Before takeoff, an Alaska State Trooper noticed a six-pack of beer visible in the baggage. Beaver had outlawed the sale, consumption and importation of alcohol in 2004. Troopers searched the plane and found three cases of beer — two Budweiser, one Bud Light — intended for the passenger’s husband, the local postmaster.
Jouppi was indicted on bootlegging charges, convicted, and sentenced. His sentence included three days in jail and a fine. State prosecutors asked that he be required to forfeit his plane, but the trial judge declined.
The state appealed that decision, and the Alaska Court of Appeals ruled in 2017 in the state’s favor. The Appeals judges sent the case back to the trial court, which again refused to order the plane’s forfeiture, citing the U.S. Constitution’s excessive fines clause.
The appeals court ordered additional proceedings by the trial court, but both Jouppi’s attorneys and state prosecutors instead asked the Alaska Supreme Court to take up the issue, which it did last year before issuing a written opinion in April.
“We hold, as a matter of law, that the owner of the airplane failed to establish that forfeiture would be unconstitutionally excessive,” wrote Justice Jude Pate on behalf of the court, which ruled unanimously in the state’s favor.
Pate and the court said that Alaska legislative debates showed that state lawmakers placed a high priority on punishments for bootleggers, and thus the seizure of an airplane was not excessive, even though a relatively small amount of beer was involved.
“Alcohol abuse in rural Alaska leads to increased crime; disorders, such as alcoholism; conditions, such as fetal alcohol spectrum disorder; and death, imposing substantial costs on public health and the administration of justice. Within this context, it is clear that the illegal importation of even a six-pack of beer causes grave societal harm,” the ruling states. “This factor strongly suggests that the forfeiture is not grossly disproportional.”
In their request for the U.S. Supreme Court to examine the case, Jouppi’s attorneys argue that the federal justices should decide whether courts should consider the seriousness of an offense in abstract, or if they should take into account a specific defendant’s circumstances.
The Alaska Supreme Court “examined the gravity of the defendant’s offense at a stratospheric level of abstraction,” they argue, when justices should have taken into account the circumstances.
The Alaska justices relied on a federal decision from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Jouppi’s attorneys note, but Alaska is within the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Judges for the 9th Circuit have considered the Excessive Fines clause of the Constitution and concluded that it is critical to “review the specific actions of the violator rather than by taking an abstract view of the violation.”
Because of those two differing interpretations of the Constitution, Jouppi’s attorneys say, the case is ripe for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider.
No date has been set for a court conference to determine whether Jouppi’s case will be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court.
If the court declines to consider his case, the Alaska Supreme Court decision will stand.
NOTN- According to a release, on August 31, 2025, at 9:30am, Alaska State Troopers were notified of an overdue hiker in the Juneau area.
Thomas Casey, age 69 of Arizona, was last seen Saturday morning and was reported to be on a hike.
No details about where he was going or when he would be back were provided.
His phone was pinged and it returned to a remote spot between Thunder mountain trail and Nugget Creek trail.
Juneau Mountain Rescue and SEADogs were contacted and 6 crews including 3 dog teams and 6 ground searchers were put in the field to start searches at the trail heads and the location of the ping. At 5pm September 1, Juneau Mountain Rescue and SEAdogs located Thomas deceased from injuries obtained from a fall.
He was located near the Mendenhall Glacier on the west side off the trail. The updated location for the cell phone was provided by RCC and Apple emergency services.
The body is being sent to the State Medical Examiner’s Office. Next of kin has been notified.
