Conference committee members include House Speaker Rep. Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham, Reps. Calvin Schrage, I-Anchorage, Justin Ruffridge, R-Soldotna, and Sens. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka, Lyman Hoffman, D-Bethel, and Mike Cronk, R-Tok, who unveiled a draft compromise bill for the proposed AKLNG gas line project on July 2, 2026. (Photo by Corinne Smith/Alaska Beacon)
House and Senate conference committee members unveiled a draft compromise bill on Thursday for the proposed Alaska LNG gas line project, pledging that debate, input and revisions will continue on the state tax break legislation up until a floor vote scheduled for July 16.
“We know we have more work to do,” said House Speaker Rep. Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham, following the committee hearing. “It’s a complex topic, and our goal today was to first get through the working draft that had, we thought, a lot of areas of compromise between, you know, sort of all the partners involved in crafting the bill.”
The six member conference committee is tasked with negotiating a compromise bill from the versions of House Bill 381, which was passed by the House and Senate in a special session in June.
Amid high political pressure, lawmakers are now in a second special session called by Gov. Mike Dunleavy to hammer out a state tax proposal that is workable for both the state and the project developer, Glenfarne, which owns 75% of the project. Glenfarne executives say the multibillion dollar tax break is essential to the project’s economics — and that it must come before the company determines a final investment decision with investors.GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.SUBSCRIBE
Dunleavy and members of the House and Senate have taken decidedly different approaches to the size and scope of the state tax break for the proposed project. The project would be built in two phases — first, an 807-mile gas line from the North Slope to Cook Inlet, then gas treatment facilities on the North Slope and on the Kenai Peninsula to export gas internationally.
One of the most fiercely debated provisions in the draft compromise is a proposal to apply the state’s corporate income tax to privately-owned oil and gas companies that currently do not pay them. The provision is favored by some lawmakers and was included in the version of the bill passed by the Senate. But Dunleavy has called the tax a “poison pill” and pledged to veto any bill that includes it. Legislative leaders say they will revisit the topic and expect to make changes to the draft.
Edmon called the corporate tax provision the “elephant in the room” and said further negotiation will continue after the holiday weekend. “I’m really looking forward to after this period of what I would call percolation that we come back and make further changes to the bill,” he said.
Rep. Calvin Schrage, I-Anchorage, who chairs the conference committee, said its members will continue hearing input on the draft bill from relevant groups, and many provisions will be further debated and revised.
“We’re going to continue that work, see how far apart the goal posts are, and do what it takes to try and bring those together,” he said. “And again, ultimately arrive with a bill on the floor that we think can be successful, and give this project a chance.”
House Speaker Rep. Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham, speaks during conference committee discussions on a new draft compromise bill for the proposed AKLNG gas line on July 2, 2026. (Photo by Corinne Smith/Alaska Beacon)
A spokesperson for Dunleavy said his office is reviewing the new draft bill, called a committee substitute, or CS, and repeated the governor’s objections to the corporate income tax provision, known as the S corporation tax, which was included in the draft bill on Thursday.
“Our initial take on the CS is that while it appears to address several of the harmful provisions for the gasline, it still contains the S corp tax that the governor and the developer have said will hurt the project’s ability to secure financing,” said Jeff Turner, Dunleavy’s communications director in an email.
In the draft compromise bill unveiled Thursday, legislators are offering a significant tax break that would replace the state’s property tax with a volumetric tax on the gas flowing through the gas line after five years, or when the gas flow reaches 500 million cubic feet per day, whichever comes first. The plan includes gradual tax increases over time as gas flows from the North Slope.
Lawmakers have proposed extending a deadline for construction to be completed on the gas line and phase one from 2032 to December 31, 2034. The provision allows the Commissioner of Revenue to review the tax deal if there are unforeseen delays outside of the developer’s control like severe weather or litigation.
The draft bill requires the gas price cap for Alaskans to rise with inflation at the national inflation rate, rather than Alaskan inflation rate, and the increase may not exceed 3% annually. It requires a variety of reporting requirements for labor agreements, filings with federal oversight agencies and construction updates on a public dashboard.
Another provision requires Glenfarne and developers to disclose their investment agreements with foreign companies investing in the project. It requires notice of any “significant changes” in the project’s ownership structure, defined as changes in entities holding more than 5% ownership interest of the gas line or 10% of the gas treatment plants.
“We’d like transparency and forthright information on who’s involved in this project and who owns a piece of that pipeline that’s dividing our state down the middle,” Schrage said.
The draft also contains a provision that prohibits the project developer from seeking payment from the state if the project is abandoned, and requires the developer to return all shares and assets to the state within six months in such a case. The issue was spotlighted by reporting on a confidential draft agreement between Glenfarne and the Alaska Gasline Development Corp. that under some conditions, the state could be ordered to pay in order to take the project back.
“It’s very important that if the state is going to offer tax concessions, that those concessions not then be leveraged against the state for a payout to the project developer,” Schrage said. “In the event that this project goes awry and the developer tries to exit, we don’t want to pay them for our concessions.”
Rep. Justin Ruffridge, R-Soldotna, raises concerns about the local contribution provision for municipalities and required payments for school districts during discussions on the draft tax bill for the proposed AKLNG gas line project on July 2, 2026. (Photo by Corinne Smith/Alaska Beacon)
Rep. Justin Ruffridge, R-Soldotna, raised questions and objections to a provision around how much municipalities’ gas line tax revenue would apply to their school funding formula, known as the local contribution. According to a legislative memo, the Kenai Peninsula would be required to contribute millions more to its school district beginning in 2034.
Ruffridge, a member of the all-Republican House minority caucus, said it was one of several provisions he objects to and cautioned the committee against “putting additional barriers” up for the project.
“We’re seeking maximum government take. I think in here we’ve asked the question, ‘How much can we extract from this project?’ And I think we’ve missed the fact that we are asking potentially to put on the line jobs, cheap energy and potentially a boon to Alaska’s economy in the form of revenue,” he said.
He said the proposal needs more work.
Several members of the House Republican minority flew down to Juneau this week to raise objections to the conference committee process and urge swift action on the bill. A full vote on a compromise bill was tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, but postponed. Technical House floor sessions were canceled on Wednesday and Thursday, to avoid what House Speaker Edgmon called “political hijinks or theatrics.”
House Minority Leader Rep. DeLena Johnson, R-Palmer, and Reps. Dan Saddler, R-Eagle River, and Garrett Nelson, R-Sutton, were among the Republican minority members that traveled to Juneau to encourage urgency on the bill, and attended the conference committee hearing on July 2, 2026. (Photo by Corinne Smith/Alaska Beacon)
“There’s no time for games, and as the presiding officer, I’m not going to play games like this,” he said.
Edgmon said the committee has been deliberating with legislative attorneys, finance officials, various related departments and project developers in a process that would normally take years.
Rep. Donna Mears, D-Anchorage and a member of the House Resources Committee, also attended the conference committee hearing on Thursday and said rushing the process is not in the best interest of the Legislature or Alaskans. She said hammering out a compromise bill that will be approved by a majority of legislators and by the governor is an enormous task.
“Trying to rush through is not feasible. We’re making a lot of big changes, and the details matter,” she said. “And the process today wasn’t obstructionist, it was moving along and making progress, and even without big huge policy decisions, there’s a lot of little things that need to get ironed out.”
Lawmakers said they are tentatively planning for the compromise bill to go before the House and Senate for a full vote on Thursday, July 16. The special session is scheduled to end on July 19.
The trans-Alaska pipeline passes through the Brooks Range above the Arctic Circle. (Nathaniel Herz/Northern Journal)
This is a short update to an ongoing story about a dispute over the taxable value of the trans-Alaska pipeline system. The previous story, with more context, by Northern Journal is here.
A high-stakes feud between Alaska’s major oil companies and three municipalities that collect taxes from those companies is now headed to court.
The fight is over the value of the trans-Alaska pipeline — a calculation that determines how much the companies owe in property taxes each year. Tens of millions of dollars are at stake.
In May, a state tax board set the pipeline’s value at $13 billion. Both the oil companies and the municipalities then filed appeals to the Alaska Superior Court this month.
The municipalities say the taxable value is much higher — about $20 billion. The oil companies say the pipeline’s value is significantly lower — some $2 billion.
Both parties appealed an initial $10 billion assessment by Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s administration. Then, the tax board raised the value by $3 billion.
The municipalities think the value was “improperly determined” by the board and is “considerably higher,” Robin Brena, an Alaska attorney who has long represented the municipalities in pipeline property tax matters, said in a brief phone interview last week.
In its 18-page appeal, lawyers for Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., which is owned by affiliates of the state’s three biggest oil companies and operates the pipeline, also said the state board erred, but for different reasons.
The board’s determination and the Dunleavy administration’s earlier decision were “excessive” and “grossly overstate” the pipeline’s value, the appeal said.
Northern Journal contributor Max Graham can be reached at max@northernjournal.com.
This article was originally published in Northern Journal, a newsletter from Nathaniel Herz. Subscribe at this link. Northern Journal is merging with the Anchorage Press! Read our announcement and other information here, and support us with a subscription here.
A polling place sign at the State Office Building in Juneau on Aug. 15, 2022. (Photo by Lisa Phu/Alaska Beacon)
The Alaska Supreme Court on Monday ordered the Alaska Division of Elections to include Dan J. Sullivan of Petersburg on the primary ballot as a candidate for U.S. Senate.
The ruling upholding a lower court’s decision came just hours after oral arguments in a fast-tracked case ahead of the division’s deadline to certify and print primary election ballots at noon on Tuesday.
The Alaska Supreme Court considered oral arguments in a fast-tracked case appealing a lower court’s ruling Dan J. Sullivan is eligible to run for U.S. Senate on June 29, 2026. (Screenshot of Gavel livestream)
A full opinion on the case will be issued at a later date, the court said.
The decision ends a weekslong saga between the state and the challenger with the same name Republican incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan. The two Sullivans are among 16 primary candidates for the seat, including former Democratic U.S House Rep. Mary Peltola.
The primary election is Aug. 18. The general election in November determines who will hold the seat for a six-year term.
On Friday, an Anchorage Superior Court ruled that the division’s decision to strike Sullivan from the ballot was unlawful. The judge determined that the division did not have the authority to add additional requirements for candidates beyond what is outlined in the U.S. Constitution. He ruled Sullivan, a retired teacher from Petersburg, is eligible to run for U.S. Senate.
The state appealed that ruling, and the case went before the Alaska Supreme Court on Monday.
Reached by phone Monday afternoon, Sullivan of Petersburg expressed relief. “I’m glad it’s over. It was pretty stressful. I’ve got to admit that,” he said.
Dan Sullivan of Petersburg announced his campaign for the U.S. Senate on May 29 to challenge incumbent U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan. (Photo courtesy of Dan Sullivan)
On the criticisms and questions about his campaign, Sullivan said they were “challenging” to hear.
“It’s all because of my name, and you know, there’s nothing I can do about my name,” he said. “I was frustrated, I felt it’s time for a change, and so I wanted to jump into the race and make my feelings and my thoughts known. So there’s not a whole lot more to it than that. They tried to make it more than that, and you know, that’s their prerogative.”
Sullivan said he would agree to be listed as “Dan J. Sullivan” on the ballot. He said he now plans to regroup and make plans to visit Alaskan communities, hear from voters, and continue the campaign for Senate.
Nate Adams, a spokesperson for Sen. Sullivan, said they were disappointed in the court ruling but encouraged by the fact that the division director can “use her expertise” to distinguish the candidates on the ballot in an emailed statement on Monday.
In the decision, the justices wrote the division will determine how the candidates will appear on the ballot.
“This matter is remanded for the Division of Elections to determine, in the first instance, how appellee Sullivan shall be listed as a candidate within the confines of existing Alaska ballot design law,” they wrote.
An official with the Alaska Department of Law on behalf of the division did not immediately respond to a question about how the two candidates would appear on the ballot.
“The State appreciates the court’s quick ruling and will work to implement the order,” said Sam Curtis with the Department of Law.
Alaska Supreme Court hears oral arguments
Sullivan from Petersburg appealed the division’s unprecedented June 15 decision to disqualify him from the U.S. Senate ballot. The Alaska Division of Elections cited complaints filed by the incumbent and Republican groups that his similar name, Republican party affiliation and campaign materials were evidence he was running in “bad faith” and mimicking the Republican incumbent, U.S. Sen. Dan S. Sullivan.
Challenger Dan. J. Sullivan has defended his campaign as authentic and genuine. In court, his attorney argued that he met all the constitutional requirements for candidacy, and the division had unlawfully added a subjective criteria.
In oral arguments before the Alaska Supreme Court on Monday, attorney Chris Murray argued on behalf of the division and its appeal of the lower court’s decision. He argued that the authority to administer the manner of elections includes disqualifying the challenger, as they deemed his intention in filing was to “frustrate the purpose” of the election and confuse voters.
Justices questioned that authority cited by the state. “A lot of the times people run for office for different reasons, to highlight an issue, to see what the process is like, and maybe start garnering support over time,” said Justice Aimee Oravec. “These are not necessarily candidates that are seeking office so much as attention for other reasons that are not necessarily bad faith, and there’s no limiting principle.”
“It seems amorphous, frankly,” said Justice Jennifer Henderson. “A broad, amorphous concept of what a candidate’s intent needs to be. So it seems like it’s very appropriate for us to worry about what is encompassed by that.”
Murray argued that the division has the authority, under current state regulations, and a duty to protect voters from confusion. “Because again, what’s the division trying to do? Protect the right to vote,” he said. “The division’s job is to make sure that people who want to vote for one candidate actually get to vote for that candidate, and their intent is reflected on the ballot.”
Justice Oravec questioned that position when the division has the authority to administer and design the ballot in a way that reduces confusion.
“You control the ballot,” she said. “So I think you’re conflating the potential for confusion when you have the authority to mitigate the confusion.”
State statute already prescribes how candidates with identical names should appear on the ballot. Candidate’s middle initials would be included — in this case “Dan J. Sullivan” for the candidate from Petersburg, and “Dan S. Sullivan” for the incumbent senator.
But in the state’s appeal filed over the weekend, Alaska Acting Attorney General Cori Mills requested that if the court upholds the ruling restoring the Petersburg Sullivan to the ballot, then the division could list him as “nonpartisan” instead of Republican like the incumbent senator.
Justices questioned whether that affiliation would be within the division’s authority. Jeffrey Robinson, arguing on behalf of Sullivan on Monday, objected to that listing. “There’s no authority for the proposition that in order to avoid confusion the director can change the party affiliation,” he said.
Robinson argued that the division adding unwritten, subjective criteria for candidates is unlawful. He again cited the case where the Alaska Democratic Party sought to remove Eric Hafner, a U.S. House candidate imprisoned out of state, and the division did not investigate his motives but found he met the qualifications to run for office.
“When would there be a better time to question the motives of someone’s intent to run for office than a convicted felon living out of state who has no potential to come back, or virtually no potential to come back and serve?” Robinson said.
The division has argued that there was no complaint filed against Hafner’s candidacy, and so no reason to investigate him.
Justice Oravec asked Robinson whether Sullivan and his legal team also dispute the division’s findings in their decision to disqualify him from the ballot. Robinson said the division’s points were “unconstitutional and frivolous” and they did not have the authority to make those findings.
In an unusual move, 14 Republican controlled states filed an amicus brief, or “friends of the court” brief, with the state Supreme Court expressing support for the division and its authority to remove Sullivan from the ballot.
The entrance to the Alaska Gasline Development Corp.’s Anchorage office is seen on Aug. 11, 2023. The state-owned AGDC is pushing for a massive project that would ship natural gas south from the North Slope, liquefy it and send it on tankers from Cook Inlet to Asian markets. The AGDC proposal is among many that have been raised since the 1970s to try commercialize the North Slope’s stranded natural gas. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)
A board member with the state-owned Alaska Gasline Development Corporation, which is a part owner of the proposed AKLNG gas line project and pushing for lawmakers to provide a multibillion dollar tax break, likened state legislators to mosquitoes — “irritating, relentless, and somehow always present” — at a board meeting on Thursday.
The “tongue-in-cheek” comparison came from Fairbanks-based secretary and treasurer of the board Dennis Michel as the corporation grapples with lawmaker scrutiny after the leak of a confidential document revealing potential state financial liability in the project.
Some legislators found the comparison to be demeaning as they continue to debate the specifics of a state tax break for the project that is estimated by the developer to cost up to $55 billion, which would include a 807-mile gas line and gas treatment facilities. The comment and some lawmakers’ reaction highlights the tension in the working relationship between the groups.
Lawmakers are now in a second special session called by Gov. Mike Dunleavy. A conference committee of six legislators are negotiating a compromise bill from competing House and Senate proposals.
Lawmakers have been largely supportive of the AKLNG project that would deliver natural gas from the North Slope. But Senate lawmakers and Dunleavy have split on details of the plan. Lawmakers are weighing provisions to provide increased protections for Alaskan gas consumers, a community impact fund, labor-related provisions, disclosure agreements for foreign investors and provisions to protect the state if the project fails to move forward, among others.
The state-owned Alaska Gasline Development Corporation is a 25% owner of the project, while Glenfarne, a private developer, is a 75% owner, after AGDC handed over ownership last year.
The AGDC board includes seven members, including five members appointed by Dunleavy and two commissioners with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities and the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development.
The mosquito-themed remarks came one day after the Alaska Beacon reported on a confidential draft analysis of an agreement between AGDC and Glenfarne that shows if the project failed to move forward under some conditions, the state could be required to pay in order to take back the project.
The document was shared with some lawmakers, but not others or the public, and it informed some Senators in questions to the developer and their push for further protections on the proposed tax break proposal.
At Thursday’s virtual board meeting, officials with AGDC said they had launched an internal investigation into how the confidential document was shared. AGDC President Frank Richards called the disclosure “bad for AGDC” and its relationship with private investors.
On Thursday, AGDC board members expressed strong support for a state approved multibillion dollar tax break to benefit the project, and heard a detailed update on the current negotiations and proposed provisions being debated in the Legislature.
At the end of the nearly two-hour meeting, Michel, the Fairbanks-based board member, made the comments in what seemed like prepared remarks. He prefaced the remarks as “tongue in cheek” before he likened lawmakers to mosquitoes seen in the Interior.
“A mosquito can turn a peaceful evening into a defensive operation. A Legislature can turn a straightforward issue into a long campaign of hearings, amendments, delays and procedural buzzing,” Michel said. “Both are persistent, too. A mosquito can keep circling until it finds bare skin. Lawmakers circle around taxes, amendments, compromises until it finally lands, or at least until someone, everyone in the room, has been bitten by the process.”
Michel said he hoped the legislative conference committee would “stop hovering” and agree to a workable tax cut for the developers.
“So, yes, mosquitoes in the Legislature are both part of life in Alaska, irritating, relentless, and somehow always present just when people are trying to get something done,” he said.
“But even mosquitoes can be a sign of something good ahead,” he added. “More mosquitoes often mean more blueberries here in the Interior. And in the same spirit, I hope that the legislators and their sessions produce more than welts and frustrations, but ultimately deliver something of value to the citizens of Alaska.”
No other board members responded to the comments, and the meeting ended shortly after.
Several lawmakers were on the call, including Sen. Cathy Giessel, R-Anchorage, who chairs the Senate Resources Committee. She has been highly involved in drafting legislation around the AKLNG project and serves as a non-voting senate representative to the board.
She called the comments “outrageously demeaning.”
Senate President Gary Stevens, R-Kodiak, Sens. Cathy Giessel, R-Anchorage, and Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage are seen at a news conference after the Senate adjourned on May 20, 2026. (Photo by Corinne Smith/Alaska Beacon)
“He is an unelected person who has been appointed as a political favor to a board with no oversight by any elected individuals in the Legislature, and he was demeaning representatives of the people who have been elected,” Giessel said in an interview on Friday.
“(The comments) demonstrate to me the cavalier attitude that this board has toward the governing body of the Legislature, the one of the branches of government, and that concerns me a great deal,” she said. “This is a generational change project and we need to be working together.”
Rep. Donna Mears, D-Anchorage, who serves on the House Resources Committee also attended the hearing. She said the comments were “not acceptable.”
“The Legislature has got a duty that is larger than the AGDC board. We have a responsibility to our communities, we have a responsibility to rate payers. Yes, this project can bring a lot of benefit to the state, but we also have to make sure that we’re not running over our communities and our ratepayers in the process,” she said in an interview Friday.
During a break in the conference committee hearing, AGDC president Richards said in an interview he did not want to speak for Michel. “He was trying to identify that as tongue in cheek,” Richards said. “And really I think maybe expressing some frustration about the lengthy process, and about what’s been happening, the back and forth.”
Frank Richards, president of the Alaska Galine Development Corp., listens to a question at a House Finance hearing held in Anchorage on May 27, 2026.. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)
“There’s this, sounds like tension, you know, that in the arena of the legislature that we want to be able to get through and achieve an economic project,” he added. “And that’s really the goal of what we’re going to do with the property tax, alternative volumetric tax provisions.”
When asked about lawmakers’ reaction, Richards said he did not have a comment, but added: “I certainly can see the perspective of hearing the words that were said and their personal reaction.”
Both Giessel and Mears noted ongoing concerns about a lack of transparency from AGDC and Glenfarne on the proposed gas line project, amplified by the reporting on the confidential draft agreement this week.
Lawmakers have been asking Glenfarne and AGDC for more detailed financial information for months. Glenfarne released an updated estimate for the project’s cost earlier this month at up to $55 billion, but state lawmakers say they still don’t have all the financial information they’ve been seeking, including estimates about the project’s profitability.
Giessel said she’s particularly concerned about confidential agreements with foreign investors. She authored provisions approved by the Senate to provide more state oversight of foreign entities and cost overruns.
“I think there’s been such distrust sown in this project that I don’t see how we can proceed forward at this point,” Giessel said. “It almost feels like there needs to be a restart where everybody comes to the table and stops hiding the ball, stops hiding the information, and the disrespect and demeaning language stops, and we start over with mutual respect and mutual collaboration.”
Mears said the legislators with the conference committee currently working on a final bill have an “enormous burden” to hammer out a compromise. She said if lawmakers still need more information, they should get more time to do their work.
“I think the information coming out this week is exactly why rushing a process is unacceptable,” she said, referring to the information in the confidential draft analysis.
“Maybe the thought that the Legislature is annoying is true,” Mears said. “Because the truth sure seems to be inconvenient. We would have a much better process starting from what we know now, and those of us that have been asking for more information for months are not wrong.”
Members of the conference committee are scheduled to meet publicly on Friday and Saturday. The Legislature is scheduled to reconvene on Wednesday July 1, but it’s uncertain whether a compromise bill will be finalized by then.
Dan Sullivan of Petersburg (left) filed to run against Republican incumbent U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan. (Campaign photo by Dan Sullivan and photo of the senator by Corinne Smith/Alaska Beacon)
An Anchorage judge heard oral arguments on Thursday in a case poised to decide whether the Alaska Division of Elections has the authority to remove a candidate with the same name as the incumbent from the race for U.S. Senate.
The court is expediting the case and a decision is expected Friday. Any appeals are expected to be before the Alaska Supreme Court on Monday, ahead of a looming deadline for the division to print primary ballots no later than noon on Tuesday, June 30.
The division made the unprecedented decision to remove Dan J. Sullivan, a retired teacher from Petersburg, from the ballot on June 15, citing a “preponderance of evidence” the candidate had not filed a “good faith candidacy” and filed with the purpose to “confuse or mislead” voters.
Sullivan appealed that decision, saying he meets all eligibility requirements to run for office. He challenged the state’s decision as unlawful, and requested the court overturn the decision and restore his candidacy on the Alaska ballot for U.S. Senate.
In opening arguments, attorneys for the Division of Elections defended the decision to disqualify Sullivan from the ballot. They said the state has a duty to protect voters from confusion, and that the state is not obligated to place a candidate on the ballot where evidence shows t
Sullivan was one of sixteen candidates to file to run for one of Alaska’s U.S. Senate seats, challenging Republican incumbent U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan in the high-stakes election that could determine the control of the U.S. Senate after the November elections. One candidate has withdrawn since then, leaving 14 challengers, including former Democratic U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola. The November election results will determine a candidate for a six-year term.
Critics of Sullivan said he was trying to confuse voters to the benefit of Peltola, the Democratic front-runner. Officials with the Peltola campaign and the Alaska Democratic Party have said they have no affiliation with either Sullivan.
Attorneys representing the Petersburg Sullivan and the Alaska Division of Elections went head to head in livestreamed Superior Court hearing, where over 300 viewers tuned in but others were not able to watch the stream. Officials with the court later apologized calling it a “record-breaking” livestream and posted a recording on their website.
Jeffrey Robinson, representing Sullivan, opened his argument reiterating that Sullivan met all the constitutional requirements to run for office: at least 30 years old, a U.S. citizen, and an inhabitant of Alaska if and when elected.
Jeffrey Robinson, an attorney for Dan J. Sullivan, argues his appeal case in Anchorage Superior Court on June 25, 2026. (Screenshot of court livestream)
“Mr. Sullivan unambiguously meets each of these criteria,” Robinson said. “As seen in previous cases, states are not allowed to add to those qualifications.”
He cited the case where the Alaska Democratic Party sought to remove Eric Hafner, a U.S. House candidate imprisoned out of state, and the division did not investigate his motives but found he met the qualifications to run for office. Robinson argued the state has subjectively and unlawfully added additional criteria for Sullivan, including restrictions on his perceived political goals, how he presents his name, campaign and his party affiliation.
“Here the division imposed a substantive mental state-based qualification for U.S. Senate candidates in Alaska, and then it cynically and arbitrarily determined that Mr. Sullivan did not meet that qualification,” he said.
Robinson said it’s up to political campaigns to distinguish candidates and educate voters. He agreed the division has the authority to make sure candidates appearing on the ballot do not confuse voters, and noted that there are state regulations that offer solutions, like adding middle initials. But he said there are no “good faith” requirements, nor any other regulations that would give the division such broad authority to look at a candidate’s motives for office.
“They have no explicit authority in situations like this to even look into a candidate’s motives. Any subjective standard for candidates imposed by the division necessarily erodes the trust of voters,” he said. “If this standard were to apply, the director could challenge any or disqualify any potential reasons of personal dislike, or that the candidate may lose to their preferred candidate.”
Arguing for the Division of Elections, attorney Chris Murray said the division has the authority to review candidates and make sure the ballot is not presented in a way that would be confusing to voters.
Chris Murray, an attorney for the Alaska Division of Elections, argues against the appeal of Dan J. Sullivan in Anchorage Superior Court on June 25, 2026. (Screenshot of court livestream)
In this case, he said the division director, Carol Beecher, reviewed complaints against the candidate filed by the Alaska Republican Party and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which works to elect Republicans, that say his name, party affiliation and campaign materials mimic the incumbent’s. Murray said Beecher found that Sullivan “accentuated the similarity” between himself and Sen. Sullivan.
“She was stuck with the preponderance of the evidence pointing to this being a declaration of candidacy filed for the purpose of seeking office, but a declaration of candidacy filed for an ulterior purpose to cause voter confusion,” he said. “The director does not have the ability to permit that.”
Murray said in the Hafner case, there was no complaint filed prior to the primary on Hafner’s candidacy. He said the division has authority to review complaints and determine whether candidates made a “proper filing” before the primary, which they did for Sullivan.
“So where’s the line? The line is: the decision on qualification has to be made before somebody is placed onto the primary ballot, that is where Alaska law, that’s where the ‘properly filed’ comes in, that’s when there’s discretion in the Division of Elections — but that’s when the Division of Election decides who goes on the ballot, it’s before the primary election, that case was after the primary election,” he said.
Judge Thomas Matthews asked Murray how the division would handle the situation of three Dan Sullivans, in a hypothetical situation where a former Anchorage mayor, Dan A. Sullivan decided to enter the U.S. Senate race.
Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews presides over the appeal case brought by Dan J. Sullivan challenging the Division of Elections decision to disqualify him for running for U.S. Senate on June 25, 2026. (Screenshot of court livestream)
Murray said a “genuine candidate” would seek to distinguish himself from other candidates, and the division could use a middle initial or notation like “challenger” or “nonincumbent” on the ballot.
“I would say that if you were dealing with all of them, and all of them were trying to get on the ballot in order to win, I think they would all be cooperatively participating in a process where they could be effectively distinguished from each other, so as to avoid voter confusion. That’s not what we have here,” he said.
Judge Matthews asked if there was a way to effectively distinguish the two Dan Sullivans.
Murray said he did not believe that is the division’s responsibility if the candidate’s goal is to confuse voters. “Where the confusion is the goal, Your Honor, we don’t believe the division is under an obligation to try and mitigate it or accommodate it,” he said. “The court could order that the division implement some method to distinguish him, and I’ll say right now, we don’t think a middle initial is sufficient.”
Murray also argued the court ruling would be an important precedent for the division to administer elections.
“If this decision is not affirmed, and it turns out that the court holds that Alaska is just simply powerless, and the division is powerless to stop this sort of behavior, we’re going to be inviting more of this,” he said.
Judge Matthews said he will announce a ruling by Friday, and it could be after business hours.
Attorneys for Sullivan also filed a stay with the court to delay the division printing primary ballots until a final decision is ruled on by the courts. Matthews said he would consider the petition.
After the ruling, both parties are expected to appeal before the Alaska Supreme Court on Monday.
Gov. Mike Dunleavy speaks to reporters at a news conference in Juneau on June 19, 2026. (Photo by Claire Stremple/Alaska Beacon)
Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy canceled funding increases for a variety of state health and education programs on Wednesday, vetoing a combined $57.8 million in general-purpose money from state budget bills passed by the Legislature.
Under the Alaska Constitution, the governor has the ability to eliminate or reduce individual line items from the budget. Dunleavy struck $20 million in extra funding for cities and boroughs, $11.25 million to increase Medicaid payments to health care providers, $6.4 million to help child care centers find workers, $2 million for the state’s seafood marketing program, $3 million for tourism marketing, and more.
The governor did not veto most of a $300 million one-time bonus that lawmakers approved for Alaska’s public schools. He did cancel $3.7 million for Head Start grants, not quite a fifth of the proposed grant budget, and funding for a proposed public education spending adequacy study.
The governor’s vetoes were spread across the state’s operating budget, capital budget and mental health budget, the three bills that determine funding for state services in the fiscal year that starts July 1 and ends June 30, 2027.
It is the lowest amount of vetoes of any year in Dunleavy’s tenure. Last year, the governor initially vetoed a higher amount, but it was reduced after a successful veto override by lawmakers.
Altogether, Alaska will spend about $6.6 billion in general-purpose money during FY27, a figure that’s up by almost $600 million from the budget approved in spring 2025, according to figures published Wednesday by the Office of Management and Budget.
While high oil prices brought in more revenue than anticipated, they also burdened state agencies, local government and school districts with extra costs.
In response, Dunleavy said, the approved budget includes some extra funding for school districts around the state that are coping with high energy costs.
“While the state realized additional revenue, those same price pressures placed a real burden on school districts, particularly in rural Alaska. This budget makes targeted, responsible use of a temporary revenue increase to stabilize school facilities and address energy costs,” he said in a statement.
Earlier this year, legislators and the governor enacted a supplemental budget bill that added hundreds of millions in general-purpose spending to the FY26 budget; the FY27 supplemental will not be decided until next spring.
When federal funding and fee-funded programs are included, the FY27 budget totals about $16.4 billion, including $782 million earmarked for the Permanent Fund dividend. Overall spending is up by about $1.2 billion from last spring.
Entering the year, Dunleavy proposed to spend more than $1.5 billion from state savings accounts in order to pay a Permanent Fund dividend estimated at about $3,800 per recipient.
Legislators turned down that proposal, ultimately deciding on a $1,200 payment that includes a $1,000 dividend and a $200 one-time bonus.
Lawmakers avoided spending from savings altogether because the Iran War increased North Slope oil prices in March.
Those high prices caused Alaskans to pay more individually, but they also generated hundreds of millions of dollars in extra revenue for the state treasury.
The Alaska State Capitol in downtown Juneau.
(Photo by Greg Knight/News of the North)
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
The Alaska State Capitol in downtown Juneau. (Photo by Greg Knight/News of the North)
Under a new law, Alaska boroughs and cities will be able to offer property tax breaks to first-time homebuyers, new trailer parks and homeowners who convert short-term rentals into long-term rentals.
Those breaks and more are included in House Bill 13, which became law this week after Gov. Mike Dunleavy declined to veto it. Eight other bills also became law without the governor’s signature.
and expand the state’s agricultural tax credit to non-food growers like flower farms and hay farms (but not marijuana), as well as farmers who are registered as S corporations.
The largest of the new laws, House Bill 110, was written by Rep. Andrew Gray, D-Anchorage, to include a licensing compact that allows out-of-state social workers to practice in Alaska and meet a demand for services.
In the Senate, it was amended with four other licensing compacts — ones covering psychologists, physician assistants, doctors and emergency medical service workers. Under the terms of these multi-state compacts, someone who is licensed in one compact state can practice in other states.
The compacts give Alaska a bonus in the scoring for grants offered under a new multibillion-dollar federal program, but they could reduce the number of practitioners who live in Alaska year-round because they would more easily allow people to live outside Alaska but work here.
A similar nursing compact failed to pass the Legislature this year.
The pace of gubernatorial action is unusually fast and concentrated this year.
Legislators are meeting in special session, and under the Alaska Constitution, the governor has “fifteen days, Sundays excepted” to act on a bill if it is sent to him while the Legislature is in session.
In addition, lawmakers have deliberately transmitted bills to the governor on a concentrated schedule that would allow them to hold veto override votes during the special session.
The bills approved Monday include six from the House and three from the Senate.
The Senate bills were not due back until Thursday, but the governor sent letters to the Senate Secretary’s office saying that he will allow them to become law without his signature.
Members of the Senate Finance Committee convene on the first day of a special legislative session on the proposed LNG gas line project on May 27, 2026. (Photo by Corinne Smith/Alaska Beacon)
Now, a newly revealed draft of the agreement between the state-owned Alaska Gasline Development Corp. and Glenfarne, the private developer, shows that if the project fails to go forward under certain conditions, the state could be required to pay in order to retake control of the project.
The contract between AGDC and Glenfarne has never been published and remains confidential, but a handful of state senators obtained a leaked draft copy during debates over the size and scope of a $16 billion tax break intended to benefit the pipeline project.
The draft offers the best glimpse to date about the relationship between the state-owned AGDC and Glenfarne, which together are pursuing a multibillion-dollar effort to sell natural gas from the North Slope.
“It’s a significant document. It should be taken seriously,” said Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka.
As legislators debated the bill containing the tax break this month, the leaked document inspired some members of the Senate to amend the legislation. Meanwhile, the document stayed secret from other senators, members of the House and Alaskans overall.
Gov. Mike Dunleavy and members of the House criticized the Senate’s version of the tax-break bill, calling it unacceptable. The governor and House lawmakers said they prefer a separate version passed by the House.
“I don’t know how the document got out to people that it got out to, but somehow it did, and quite frankly, thank God it did,” said Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage.
When the Beacon asked AGDC and Glenfarne about the document and its contents, each said they are bound by a confidentiality rule and cannot discuss them.
“We believe Glenfarne can deliver something enormously important for the state: reliable and affordable energy, thousands of jobs, and the opportunity to finally unlock the value of North Slope natural gas for future generations of Alaskans,” said Tim Fitzpatrick, a spokesman for Glenfarne, by email. “Business documents are protected as a matter of ethical and good faith principles. For that reason, rather than any document specifics, the inappropriate distribution of draft AGDC materials is very disappointing.”
With the House and Senate having passed different versions of the tax-break legislation, lawmakers are negotiating a compromise that could come as early as the first week of July and as late as never.
If the bill advances, the protections inspired by the leaked document could be preserved, diluted or removed entirely.
“The structure of the state’s agreements that could leave Alaskans paying for something is something Alaskans should know,” said Sen. Jesse Kiehl, D-Juneau.
“I’m worried, and I don’t have full information, so we’re doing the best we possibly can,” he said.
Details of the confidential document
The document obtained by the senators dates from a key point in the pipeline project’s history.
That timing indicates the draft obtained by lawmakers and the Beacon was written relatively late in the process and may be close to the final version.
“My impression is that it is a highly refined draft,” Stedman said.
By email, AGDC president Frank Richards said it was written by an AGDC staff member for the corporation’s board of directors.
“The document you reference is a confidential memorandum meant for use by the AGDC Board to make an informed decision on a significant business partnership to move the Alaska LNG Project forward. Alaska LNG has made historic progress in the past fourteen months and development momentum continues,” he wrote.
Glenfarne officials have testified that they will allow legislators who sign non-disclosure agreements to examine financial documents. Members of the Senate Finance Committee have said in hearings that they are unwilling to accept that precondition.
“AGDC has identified that Alaska’s oil and gas property taxes are very high compared to other jurisdictions where LNG facilities are built and need to be lowered to help the Alaska LNG Project be competitive to attract capital investment and achieve (final investment decision),” he wrote.
With an officially estimated construction price of between $44.5 billion and $54.5 billion, the project — formally named Alaska LNG or AKLNG — would be one of the largest natural gas projects on Earth.
Under current law, Alaska would levy a 2% property tax on that project when it finishes construction. Legislators are considering whether to replace that tax with a tax on natural gas pumped through the pipeline. The resulting tax break would be worth about $16 billion over the project’s first 30 years of operation.
Alaska would still receive royalties and production taxes from natural gas sold through the pipeline, and it would receive assorted other fees as well, such as the proceeds of carbon dioxide sequestration.
Altogether, the state treasury stands to earn as much as $800 million per year for 30 years. That’s on top of the economic benefits caused by having thousands of extra workers in the state to build the pipeline, and potentially cheaper natural gas for residents and local industries.
As explained in public and in the confidential document, AKLNG would be built in two phases. The first phase would include a “764-mile, 42-inch-diameter pipeline” from the North Slope “into the Southcentral Alaska gas pipeline system.”
Coupled with a small gas treatment facility on the North Slope, that first phase would provide gas for in-state use by Alaskans.
Because the pipeline will not be built before Southcentral Alaska begins running out of gas, the confidential agreement also calls for AGDC and Glenfarne to build a gas import facility together.
Once the pipeline is operating, the partnership would use that equipment for exports.
The second phase would involve connecting the pipeline to the Prudhoe Bay and Point Thomson oil and gas fields, plus construction of a larger gas treatment facility and a liquefied natural gas export facility on the Kenai Peninsula “capable of (exporting) up to 20 million tons per annum.”
The pipeline, North Slope facility and Kenai Peninsula facility are each considered “sub projects” under the agreement between AGDC and Glenfarne.
“Glenfarne will negotiate contracts for construction, equipment, materials, and gas supply,” the document states. “No projects can create an obligation for AGDC or the State of Alaska without prior approval by AGDC or the State of Alaska, respectively.”
Currently, lawmakers are considering whether to restrict AGDC’s ability to borrow money without input from the Legislature. The House version of the tax-break bill would allow AGDC to borrow without permission, but lawmakers could halt the borrowing. The Senate version would require AGDC to ask permission first.
When AGDC and Glenfarne reach a final investment decision — a last decision on whether to build at all — there will be new development agreements that determine the ownership of each subproject.
Ownership would be split among any investors, AGDC and Glenfarne.
In presentations to the Legislature, AGDC officials explained that while the state currently owns 25% of the project, that share will be diluted on each subproject as investors are brought on board. The state will only keep its 25% share if it invests more money.
The confidential draft agreement says Glenfarne must reach “clawback milestones” to continually prove that it is operating in good faith.
If AGDC decides Glenfarne hasn’t met a milestone — such as signing a binding agreement to sell natural gas to a particular customer — it could seek to retake the project. That may require AGDC to pay.
The structure of the state’s agreements that could leave Alaskans paying for something is something Alaskans should know.
– Sen. Jesse Kiehl, D-Juneau
If Glenfarne disputes AGDC’s assessment, the two parties would consult a third party.
AGDC isn’t required to repurchase Glenfarne’s part of the project, but if it does, Glenfarne would be the one proposing the price, “based on the value Glenfarne has added to the company.”
AGDC could dispute that price, and if it does, an “independent investment bank” would determine the final amount.
Senators familiar with the confidential draft said this language was new to them, and they see it as a potential financial liability.
Under the draft agreement, confidentiality is required
“We are trying to craft legislation to protect the state’s interests, and we’ve been put in a position where we have had to guess what is in the contract or not in the contract in order to protect our interests. That is an awful place to be as a state and as a legislature,” Wielechowski said.
Secrecy between Alaska’s state-owned corporations and their investment partners isn’t unprecedented, nor are controversies over that secrecy.
When it comes to the gas pipeline, Glenfarne released an updated estimate for the project’s cost earlier this month, but state lawmakers still don’t have all the financial information they’ve been seeking, including estimates about the project’s profitability.
The confidential draft states that AGDC would share profits with Glenfarne and other partners, but lawmakers don’t know what that share would be or how the project’s economics would change under the tax break being discussed by legislators.
The Alaska Department of Revenue has provided public estimates, but Glenfarne and AGDC have not.
“On the whole, it gets down to the level of information that we need to make good decisions, and we have a little bit more than we had when the bill came out of the House, but we are still pretty short,” said Sen. Jesse Kiehl, D-Juneau and one of the lawmakers who had access to the document.
How we reported this article
The Beacon obtained the draft agreement discussed in this article on Friday from a source who does not work for the Legislature and was able to compare it with a separate paper copy the following day.
The text of the copies was identical, though the paper copy — used by a senator — had its control number and other identifying information clipped out. The senator said they would be shredding their copy after the examination.
We do not know who originally leaked the document, whether there were multiple leakers, or why they shared the document.
After verifying the document, the Beacon called and emailed Glenfarne on Monday about its contents and sent a list of questions by email when asked to do so.
AGDC’s Frank Richards responded by email. Glenfarne officials spoke on the phone but were not willing to be quoted directly, and provided a written statement.
Richards asked for a copy of the “document or documents” the Beacon had. The Beacon declined to send that document — and we are declining to post it in this article — because even with control numbers and other identifying information redacted, it could still contain language that would allow the source to be identified.
The Beacon did not receive answers to all of its questions, including details about how much has been spent on the project to date and possible partnerships with companies mentioned in the draft agreement.
Lawmakers have concerns over the clawback
Senators familiar with the confidential agreement said they don’t recall when they first received it, in part because they initially overlooked its importance.
Sen. Cathy Giessel, R-Anchorage, said she became aware of the draft when her aide, Paige Brown, read through it.
“It wasn’t actually until the last couple weeks that … I found it in a pile of my desk and said, “‘Paige, look this over, I think there might be some stuff in here,’ and she started flagging sections, and we started looking at it more closely,” Giessel said.
Stedman said that when he first saw the document, “I was struggling, quite frankly, on how to handle it.”
He briefly considered releasing it to the general public.
“I actually thought about putting it on the table, and I didn’t do it … because it’s marked confidential. It’s highly sensitive,” he said.
The clawback section drew senators’ attention. Members of the Senate majority have been openly concerned about the risks to the state if the project doesn’t go forward or is only partially built.
In a Senate Finance hearing on June 16, members of the Senate Finance Committee grilled AGDC consultant Matt Kissinger and Glenfarne Alaska president Adam Prestidge with questions drawn from the draft.
“There is no scenario where we will ask the state for money,” Prestidge said under questioning.
The state will be given a chance to invest money in the project, he said, but “even the state investment option is an option to the state that doesn’t come with a formal request or pressure from Glenfarne.”
Prestidge didn’t mention the clawback, so Stedman went a different direction: “Was there preliminary discussions when all this came together, about any exit strategies and purchases, buybacks, any of that stuff?” he asked.
“There is a different provision around making the developer leave, which would require a payment, but as far as the developer quitting themselves and no longer pursuing diligent development efforts, no, there was never even a discussion of a payment in regards to that,” Kissinger said, alluding to the clawback but not explicitly stating it.
Afterward, Stedman said he wasn’t pleased with the answers.
“It’s hard sitting at the table when you knew some of the answers weren’t as direct and accurate as they should be,” he said.
Days later, the Senate rewrote the tax break bill. One of its amendments — adopted by a 14-6 vote, with all members of the majority voting yes — states that if the project does not go forward, the developer must transfer all of the project’s assets back to AGDC within six months “at no cost to the corporation or the state.”
Another amendment, adopted by an identical 14-6 vote, requires AGDC and Glenfarne to report any relationships with foreign companies.
One section of the confidential agreement states that Glenfarne will work with Canadian natural gas firm Enbridge on the proposed import terminal. Another section says Glenfarne will talk with South Korean conglomerate Hanwha Group and Japan’s Inpex about the export terminal.
The document also provided senators with a definition of “final investment decision” as determined by AGDC and Glenfarne.
That mattered, Stedman said, because if legislators used a different definition for that term than AGDC and Glenfarne did, any law covering the term might be ineffective.
Dismay from AGDC’s president
Before the Senate voted on the pipeline tax break, some members of the Senate Majority invited AGDC president Richards into the office of Senate President Gary Stevens, R-Kodiak, and told him what they had.
None of the participants in that meeting were willing to discuss it in depth.
Richards said by email that he was “dismayed” when senators told him last week.
“I think you’ll find AGDC is very concerned about this document,” Stedman said this week, “and potential liability exposure between them and Glenfarne.”
Richards said AGDC’s board is considering an investigation.
“The protection of confidential information is specifically and purposefully allowed in AGDC’s statutes to fulfill the corporation’s mission to deliver North Slope natural gas for the benefit of Alaskans,” he said by email.
While the Capitol has a reputation for information leaks, the text of the document stayed closely held, even as rumors about its existence spread.
I have not liked this process where we are working in the dark and we are not getting information that we need to protect the state’s interests. We are being forced to just guess where the landmines are, guess where the pitfalls are. I don’t like being in that situation at all, and every Alaskan should be concerned about that.
– Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage
Each of the three co-chairs of the House Finance Committee said they had not seen the document. Rep. Neal Foster, D-Nome, said he had heard about it, though.
“I just know there’s something out there, and everybody was kind of getting excited,” he said.
Foster said the document was never discussed in deliberations within the House Finance Committee nor was it discussed among members of the House’s majority coalition.
Sen. James Kaufman, R-Anchorage, and Senate Minority Leader Mike Cronk, R-Tok, are on the Senate Finance Committee and said they had not seen the draft.
Even some Senate majority members said they had not seen it.
“Is that the secret document everyone’s talking about?” said Sen. Kelly Merrick, R-Eagle River, when asked.
“I have not seen that, and I don’t care to see it. I don’t want to be responsible for confidential information,” she said.
Members of the state House and Senate are scheduled to meet July 1 and may consider a compromise tax break on that day.
A preliminary meeting is scheduled for 2 p.m. Friday.
Even if the confidential Glenfarne-AGDC agreement becomes more widely known, senators said lawmakers will be crafting a compromise with incomplete information.
“I have not liked this process where we are working in the dark and we are not getting information that we need to protect the state’s interests,” Wielechowski said. “We are being forced to just guess where the landmines are, guess where the pitfalls are. I don’t like being in that situation at all, and every Alaskan should be concerned about that.”
Members of the Alaska House Judiciary and State Affairs committees held an investigatory hearing on Monday about the state’s decision to remove a candidate from the U.S. Senate election with the same name as the incumbent — Dan Sullivan.
The Division of Elections announced that Dan J. Sullivan, a retired teacher from Petersburg, was not eligible to run for the U.S. Senate. It cited complaints from the incumbent and Republican groups when it decided his candidacy was not in “good faith,” and aimed at confusing voters with the incumbent U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan. The division cited a state regulation that forbids the Division of Elections from listing a candidate’s name “in a manner that is confusing or misleading to voters or compromises the fairness or neutrality of the ballot.”
But some lawmakers questioned the decision and the division’s authority to remove the challenger candidate. An attorney representing the Alaska Legislature issued a legal memo Wednesday saying the decision to disqualify the candidate was likely unlawful, since he did not violate the U.S. Constitution’s qualifications to run for office.
The hearing took place as Dan Sullivan of Petersburg filed an appeal of the state’s decision to disqualify him from the ballot on Monday, taking the issue before a state superior court. In the complaint, Sullivan defended his eligibility and challenged the division’s decision to remove him. He argues the action is unlawful, and is asking the court to overturn the decision and restore his name on the ballot for the August primary.
Lawmakers held a hearing in Anchorage to investigate the division’s decision. Division officials declined to appear so the committee relied on testimony from attorneys.
Judiciary committee chair Rep. Andrew Gray, D-Anchorage, opened Monday’s hearing by saying the issue under scrutiny was not the particular candidate or his motives, but about the limits of the division’s authority and whether that authority is being applied fairly.
“What authority does the Division of Elections have to remove a candidate from the ballot, and has that authority been exercised consistently?” Gray said. “Those questions matter because public confidence in elections depends on more than accurate vote counting. It depends on the public’s confidence that the rules are applied equally to everyone.”
Gray cited a previous case where the candidate’s political motives and eligibility were challenged, but the state took a different stance. When the Alaska Democratic Party sought to remove Eric Hafner, a U.S. House candidate imprisoned out of state, the division defended his right to run for office. The Alaska Supreme Court allowed him to remain on the ballot. Hafner is running for the seat again this year. Gray emphasized the difference in the state’s approach.
“When a government agency departs from positions it has taken in previous cases, the public deserves an explanation,” Gray said. “And when a government agency removes the candidate from the ballot, the public deserves a very clear explanation.”
Lawmakers called the hearing and requested the division director, Carol Beecher, appear and participate in providing further information and an explanation for removing Sullivan. Beecher declined last week, citing the division’s work preparing the ballot scheduled to be printed on June 28.
Legislators then issued a rare legislative subpoena and served Beecher on Sunday to compel her to appear before the committee.
Empty chairs for tesifiers at a June 22, 2026, hearing in Anchorage on candidate qualification. The hearing was held by the House State Affairs and House Judiciary committees. Seated in the background are Rep. Steve St. Clair, R-Wasilla, and Rep. Ky Holland, I-Anchorage. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)
On Monday, Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom, who oversees the state’s election system, issued a letter again declining to appear and threatening legal action.
“If you refuse, we may have no choice but to seek to quash the subpoena in court due to the unreasonable timeframe provided and the lack of urgency while the appeal period is still pending,” Dahlstrom wrote.
Gray noted that division officials gave Sullivan of Petersburg only one day to respond to questions, and then removed him from the ballot four days later. He announced at the hearing that they had rescinded the subpoena and agreed that elections officials would participate in another investigative hearing scheduled for July 22.
On Monday, the committee heard from several attorneys with experience working on elections issues, including Andrew Dunmire, a legislative attorney who wrote a legal memo saying the division’s actions were likely unconstitutional.
Dunmire wrote that under the U.S. Constitution, there are three qualifications for federal candidates: they must be at least 30 years old, a U.S. citizen for at least nine years and an inhabitant of the state when elected. He said, as seen in previous cases, states are not allowed to add to those qualifications.
“The US Constitution is the supreme source of law in our country, and there’s no administrative regulation that can override a constitutional requirement,” he said.
Lawmakers discussed the state regulation cited by elections officials which prohibits the division from placing names on the ballot “in a manner that is confusing or misleading to voters or compromises the fairness or neutrality of the ballot.”
Several Republican members of the committee defended the division’s actions, including Rep. Mia Costello, R-Anchorage, who said the division has a responsibility to protect the ballot from confusing or misleading voters.
“The division does have a responsibility to determine whether or not the voters are being misled, whether it has to do with how long they’ve lived here, whether it has to do with their name,” Costello said, and questioned whether Sullivan’s motives should be further investigated by the U.S Department of Justice or the Federal Elections Commission.
“I hope that this issue is resolved, so that anybody who wants to run for office in the state of Alaska can do it, but they cannot do it in a manner that is going to confuse or undermine the importance of elections,” she said.
But Dunmire, with Legislative Legal Services, said while the state can investigate allegations of campaign misconduct, the division has no authority to investigate a candidate’s motives in running for office.
“It is not the division’s role, they have no explicit authority in situations like this to look into a candidate’s motivations,” he said.
Dunmire noted state regulation has rules for when two candidates with the same name appear on the ballot. Candidates’ names would appear with a middle initial, in this case the challenger as “Dan J. Sullivan,” and the incumbent as “Dan S. Sullivan.”
Hollis French, a former state senator and prosecutor, was invited to testify before the committee and did not mince words.
“I don’t think you would need any special legal training to smell a rat here,” French said. “If a prisoner with no ties to the state of Alaska in New York state can be put on the ballot for federal office in the state of Alaska, I think the Division of Elections is sort of foreclosed from then on, from engaging in what they’ve engaged in this case.”
French said as a prosecutor, it’s nearly impossible to prove someone’s motives. He emphasized the division can take steps to distinguish the two names on the ballot, and then it’s up to candidates to campaign and appeal to voters.
“There’s a way to designate that in a neutral manner on the ballot, and then put the burden on the candidates to remind everybody that they’re the Dan Sullivan from Fairbanks or the Dan Sullivan with an S, or the Dan Sullivan with a J,” he said.
Rep. Ashley Carrick, D-Fairbanks and chair of the House State Affairs Committee, said she was highly concerned about a subjective standard for candidates imposed by the division that may erode the trust of voters.
“I think there’s a clear risk in the longer term future to the Division of Elections and Alaska’s election integrity if we see mistakes or differences of opinion in how this authority to investigate can be utilized,” she said.
“And really, truly, my biggest concern here is that if ‘good faith,’ as was stated in the memo from the Division of Elections, becomes an additional implicit standard for candidacy, Alaska will have added more than just an additional requirement. We will have functionally added a subjective standard for qualification to run for office.”
Demonstrators gathered outside the Alaska Division of Elections in Downtown Juneau and broadcast the House Judiciary Committee’s hearing in protest of the decision to remove a candidate from the ballot they said was an abuse of power and compromising election integrity on June 22, 2026. (Photo by Corinne Smith/Alaska Beacon)
Sen. Elvi Gray-Jackson, D-Anchorage, speaks in favor of the veto override on Senate Bill 41 on Friday, June 19, 2026. Watching at left is Rep. Louise Stutes, R-Kodiak. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
Sen. Elvi Gray-Jackson, D-Anchorage, speaks in favor of the veto override on Senate Bill 41 on Friday, June 19, 2026. Watching at left is Rep. Louise Stutes, R-Kodiak. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)
Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy extended his record-high veto rate Thursday by vetoing nine of the 82 bills passed by lawmakers in the second year of the 34th Alaska State Legislature.
Two of the vetoed bills — one expanding the power of pharmacists and the other covering the state’s board of engineers and architects — were put into law Friday after lawmakers overrode the governor.
Dunleavy has now vetoed or attempted to veto almost one-fifth of all bills passed by the 34th Legislature. Other governors have issued more vetoes, but none have vetoed a higher proportion of bills than Dunleavy.
Pharmacists’ powers expanded
State legislators voted 43-17 on Friday to override Dunleavy’s veto of House Bill 195, which gives pharmacists more authority to prescribe medicines and conduct simple medical tests. Forty votes were needed.
Rep. Genevieve Mina, D-Anchorage, spoke in favor of the override, saying the bill will enable Alaskans to get cheaper medical care from pharmacists instead of more expensive providers.
Rep. Zack Fields, D-Anchorage, offered an example: For a parent with a child suffering from strep throat after their pediatrician had closed for the day, going to an urgent care clinic might cost hundreds of dollars, and an emergency room visit could cost thousands.
“This bill allows a parent to take their child to a pharmacy” and get a strep throat test, he said.
“We have a growing number of families in Alaska that cannot afford health insurance. If they can’t take their kid to a pharmacy, they’re just not going to get treated,” he said.GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.SUBSCRIBE
Some antiabortion advocates lobbied against the bill, saying they believe the bill could allow pharmacists to more easily dispense abortion-inducing drugs.
Rep. Jamie Allard, R-Eagle River, spoke to that point, but Rep. Mike Prax, R-North Pole and a strong antiabortion advocate himself, said that information is incorrect.
Alaska law limits who may perform an abortion in the state, Prax said.
“It just simply isn’t an issue, and therefore the benefits of this bill clearly outweigh any of the risks,” he said.
Interior designers added to architecture board
Lawmakers also overrode Dunleavy’s veto of House Bill 314 by a 45-15 margin. Forty votes were needed.
A revised version of a bill Dunleavy vetoed last year, HB 314 will regulate some aspects of interior design in the state by adding them to the State Board of Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors.
The bill also renewed the board’s legal authority, and when Dunleavy vetoed HB 314, it could have at least temporarily eliminated the board as a side effect. While the duties of the board would have been assumed by the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, lawmakers said they did not want to eliminate the board just as the state considers a state-spanning natural gas pipeline.
No extra oversight for for kids’ psychiatric facilities
Forty of the Legislature’s 60 members are needed to override the veto of a policy bill, and legislators failed to reach that threshold on three votes Friday due to the opposition of Republican lawmakers.
If enacted, the bill would have required unannounced state inspections of facilities like North Star and reports on the use of physical and chemical restraints on children, among other items.
In his veto message, the governor said that while he supports oversight, he believes the bill duplicates what the state is already empowered to do.
Local districts would have been responsible for implementing that curriculum.
The override vote was 38-22, two votes short of what was needed.
The issue, Gray-Jackson told legislators Friday, is nothing short of a matter of life and death.
Alaska has the highest suicide rate in the nation, she said, and “in many rural communities, suicide rates are nearly four times that the national average. Teaching our students how to recognize mental health challenges, to seek help and support one another, is one of the most basic and meaningful steps we can take to address this crisis.”
In his veto message, the governor said, “this bill places the state in the role of imposing upon school districts to mandate the development of mental health education at a time when districts are already working to meet existing requirements.”
“Decisions about sensitive classroom instruction, especially instruction involving a student’s mental and emotional health, should remain as close as possible to parents, local school boards, and communities,” he said.
Gray-Jackson lambasted that statement, saying it repeated “false” and “harmful” misinformation from “online blogs and commentators.”
“SB 41 didn’t remove parents from the conversation, it didn’t strip authority from local school boards, it didn’t replace community values with a one-size-fits-all mandate,” she said.
“The reality is much simpler,” Gray-Jackson said. “The governor vetoed a bill with the potential to save lives in every community represented in this chamber, and I can’t emphasize that enough.”
No retirement plans for minimum-wage workers
Legislators failed by a single vote to override Dunleavy’s veto of Senate Bill 21, which would have provided state-run retirement plans for workers in businesses that do not currently offer retirement benefits.
The program under SB 21, similar to efforts already launched by other states, would have principally affected minimum-wage workers and those in small businesses. Unless they opt out, eligible workers would have had 5% of their paychecks automatically deducted and deposited into an investment account managed by the state.
In his veto message, the governor said he opposes a mandate, even with an opt-out provision.
“Although employees may opt out, the bill relies on automatic enrollment and places employers in the middle of a state-run investment program. Alaska businesses should not be required to
administer or facilitate retirement savings accounts created by the State when private retirement
and investment options are already available,” Dunleavy wrote.
The vote on an override was 39-21, with Rep. Kevin McCabe, R-Big Lake, casting the last and decisive vote to sustain the governor’s decision.
No updates to corporate or tobacco taxes
Of the governor’s nine vetoes, legislators declined to vote on four, permitting them to stand without a vote.
Dunleavy vetoed two bills — House Bill 280 and Senate Bill 24 — saying that he is unwilling to approve tax changes without a comprehensive fiscal plan that brings state expenses and revenue into line over the long-term.
Both bills had been passed in different forms by prior editions of the Legislature and were also previously vetoed by Dunleavy. If SB 24 had been enacted, it would have imposed Alaska’s first tax on e-cigarette products. HB 280 would have modernized the state’s corporate income tax system, taking tax revenue for online sales from other states to the Alaska treasury by declaring that sales to Alaskans take place in Alaska, not at the location of a warehouse or computer server operated by the seller.
House Bill 23, also vetoed by the governor, would have subjected nonprofit businesses to the authority of the Alaska State Commission for Human Rights, which handles discrimination complaints against employers.
“While I support protecting Alaskans from unlawful discrimination, this bill expands the commission’s reach over nonprofit employers, including charitable, educational, and religious organizations. That expansion creates uncertainty for small community organizations and risks unnecessary administrative proceedings and litigation,” the governor wrote in his veto message.
The last of the vetoes, Senate Bill 258, would have forbidden the state from signing computer software deals that lock in the state to a particular company or limit the software to a particular geographic area.
The governor’s veto message said in part that the “bill places rigid statutory limits on how the State and political subdivisions may contract for software in a highly technical and rapidly changing marketplace.”
“Software licensing, cybersecurity requirements, cloud services, support, hosting, and pricing
models are complex and often negotiated together. Restricting those negotiations in statute could reduce flexibility, limit access to needed products, and increase costs for agencies and local governments,” he wrote.
