Elections workers double-check the results of Alaska's Aug. 16, 2022 primary election during a meeting of the state review board on Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2022 at the Alaska Division of Elections in Juneau. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
Elections workers double-check the results of Alaska’s Aug. 16, 2022 primary election during a meeting of the state review board on Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2022 at the Alaska Division of Elections in Juneau. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
Early, in-person voting begins Monday for Alaska’s Aug. 18 state primary election, and thousands of voters have already cast absentee ballots by mail.
Regardless of when — or how — Alaskans vote, ballots will be counted starting on election day, according to a preliminary schedule provided by the Alaska Division of Elections.
Polls close at 8 p.m. Alaska Daylight Time, and the division expects to have the first preliminary results “between 8:45 p.m. and 9 p.m.”
“There are additional results updates that follow but how many or at what time they will be published will vary,” the division said in an information packet given to reporters.
The final unofficial tally will take place Aug. 28, 10 days after election day, and the division expects to certify official results by Aug. 31.
Any recounts must be requested by Sept. 5, and any lawsuit challenging a result must be filed by Sept. 10.
Timeline of the 2026 primary election
Aug. 3 – Early voting begins in person.
Aug. 11 – Elections officials begin ID checks on absentee ballot envelopes. Absentee votes in those envelopes are not counted until at least Aug. 18.
Aug. 18 – Election day. Polls open across the state.
Late Aug. 18 – Absentee ballots begin to be counted, in-person votes are counted.
9 p.m. Aug. 18 – First results expected online.
Early morning Aug. 19 – final election day results expected online.
Aug. 25 – Absentee votes counted to this point are added to the unofficial tally.
Aug. 28 – Final unofficial results available online.
Aug. 31 – Official results certified. Deadline for final four candidates to withdraw from the November election.
Sept. 5 – Deadline to request recounts.
Sept. 10 – Deadline to challenge election results in court.
Under Alaska’s election system, voters pick one candidate for each race in the primary election. The top four vote-getters, regardless of political party, advance to the general election in November. If there are four or fewer candidates in a race, all advance to the general election.
In practice since 2022, lower-finishing Republican candidates have preferred to withdraw after the primary rather than compete against another Republican.
The Valley Republican Women, a notable group from the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, are running ads this year to promote the strategy. Those ads urge Republicans to “consolidate the vote” and “don’t split the field.”
In races with many competitors, a withdrawn candidate will be replaced by another until there are four options on the ballot or no more replacements are available. Any replacements may themselves withdraw.
The deadline to withdraw after the primary is Aug. 31.
Normally, ballots cast in person are counted on election day itself. Since 2020, votes cast in person have leaned Republican.
It’s common for some rural Alaska precincts to not report results on election night itself.
Two years ago, for example, only 387 of 403 precincts had reported results by 1 a.m. Wednesday, the day after election day. Four years ago, four precincts needed more than four days to report results from election day.
Historically, some rural precincts have had staffing problems that prevented them from opening on election day. In 2024’s primary, two precincts failed to open, and one opened only in the afternoon. In 2022, two precincts failed to open. In both 2024 and 2022, voters in the affected places were able to cast absentee ballots instead.
Absentee ballots are counted starting on election day, but that counting process extends until Aug. 28. Under Alaska law, absentee ballots — if they are postmarked on or before Aug. 18 — can reach the Division of Elections up to 10 days after election day and still be counted.
Counting an absentee ballot requires the division to first verify the identity information on the outside of the ballot envelope. That verification process starts Aug. 11, the division said, though the ballot inside the envelope won’t be counted until at least election day.
The verification process continues after election day, with ballots added to the tally in batches. The division expects to update results on Aug. 25 and again on Aug. 28, with additional updates possible between those two dates.
A sample ballot seen at the headquarters of the Alaska Division of Elections on Thursday, July 9, 2026, shows the language for the campaign finance ballot measure. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)
On Aug. 18, Alaskans will be asked if they want to change the way the state’s elections operate, but not in the way that most voters are thinking.
The sole ballot measure before voters in the primary election would reimpose limits on the amount of money that individuals and groups can donate to political candidates in state elections.
A well-funded campaign to repeal the state’s system of open primaries and a ranked choice general election — known as Ballot Measure 2 — won’t be voted on until November.
The measure on the ballot in August would prohibit political donors from giving a candidate more than $2,000 per election. Groups would be allowed to give no more than $4,000 per candidate per election.
Both limits would be adjusted for inflation every 10 years, and they would only apply to state-level elections — for governor, state House and state Senate.
Federal elections, those for President, U.S. Senate and U.S. House, operate under different limits enshrined in federal law.
In the state’s official election pamphlet, the chairs of the group — former state attorney general Bruce Botelho; Rep. Calvin Schrage, I-Anchorage; dog musher David Monson — state their case, explaining that they view campaign donation limits as “guardrails” on democracy.
“Without these guardrails, wealthy individuals and special interests can have an oversized impact and shift a candidate’s focus away from the constituents they are supposed to serve,” they wrote.
Speaking in a public hearing on Monday, Schrage said, “When a single donor can spend hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars on a single candidate, it creates a dangerous environment. It not only grants undue influence to the ultra-wealthy, but it also exposes our elected officials to the risk and perception of quid pro quo corruption.”
In the pamphlet, three Republicans, all former legislators, argue against the initiative.
“Campaign contributions are a form of political speech. To limit someone’s ability to support a candidate is to limit their voice in the democratic process,” said former Rep. Ben Carpenter, R-Nikiski; former Sen. David Wilson, R-Wasilla; and former Rep. Liz Vazquez, R-Anchorage.
In addition, imposing limits on outside donations gives an advantage to candidates who are wealthy enough to pay for their own campaigns, they said.
In Monday’s hearing, another Republican, Amy Demboski, spoke in support of their position.
“Reintroducing new caps creates a pay-to-play barrier where only those who already possess significant name recognition can thrive, effectively silencing the grassroots support necessary for insurgent or unconventional candidates,” she said.
The U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that it is unconstitutional to limit the amount of money that a candidate may spend on their own campaign.
Ballot Measure 1 also does not limit the amount of money that a third-party group can independently spend to support or oppose a candidate. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision, known as Citizens United, allows unlimited amounts of spending by groups that don’t coordinate directly with candidates.
Also this year, the Supreme Court ruled that political parties may spend unlimited amounts of money in coordination with federal candidates. That decision may affect state races in the future.
Ballot Measure 1 is the consequence of a lengthy and successful legal challenge by a group of Republicans inside and outside the state.
Until 2021, Alaska had some of America’s lowest limits on financial donations to candidates — $500 per candidate, per year. Those were installed by a 2006 ballot measure that passed with the support of 73% of participating voters.
But a group of Republicans challenged the legality of those limits in 2015, arguing that they unduly restricted free speech. The case was appealed and remanded multiple times before a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the limits in July 2021.
Gov. Mike Dunleavy declined to appeal the issue further, and the limits were removed ahead of Dunleavy’s successful re-election campaign the following year.
In 2022 and 2024, state lawmakers attempted but failed to pass a bill reimposing limits. Legislators this year passed a bill identical to Ballot Measure 1, but Gov. Mike Dunleavy vetoed that bill.
In his veto statement, the governor said the new limits “would radically tilt in the favor of the wealthy when it comes to elected office.”
The lack of limits has had its biggest effect on Alaska’s races for governor. In 2022, all three leading candidates — Dunleavy, independent Bill Walker and Democratic candidate Les Gara — recorded large contributions from individual donors.
Most of the other 15 candidates in the governor race, including most of the Republicans, have taken similarly large donations, but not to the extent that the leading Democrats have.
The Republican candidate who has raised the most money, podiatrist Matt Heilala, has spent more than $1.25 million on his own campaign. Click Bishop, a Republican who has raised a middling amount of money, is also being boosted by a large union-funded third-party group. Those latter types of spending would not be affected by Ballot Measure 1.
The Alaska House gavels in for the third special session in 2026 on the proposed AKLNG gasline project, with House Speaker Rep. Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham, presiding and Reps. DeLena Johnson, R-Palmer, and Sara Hannan, D-Juneau, in attendance on July 27, 2026. (Photo by Corinne Smith/Alaska Beacon)
The Alaska Legislature opened its third special session of 2026 with no bill, few lawmakers and little hope.
A handful of legislators gathered Monday in the state Capitol at Juneau to begin a 30-day session called by Gov. Mike Dunleavy after the failure of a compromise bill that would have provided a tax break to the developer of the proposed trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline.
But on Monday, the governor had no new alternative bill ready for legislators as the special session began.
In a statement on social media, Dunleavy said, “Before reintroducing the legislation, my administration is going to continue meeting with all parties to determine the best path forward to an agreement.”
Answering questions about those meetings, the governor’s office said it had nothing more to add.
‘I don’t believe the Legislature can do much now’
The pipeline’s lead developer, Glenfarne, has said that a reduction in the state’s petroleum property tax is necessary for it to obtain the financing needed to build the pipeline.
Passing a bill into law requires 21 votes in the House, 11 in the Senate, and the assent of the governor. In a special session called by the governor, lawmakers may only work on topics designated by the governor. In Dunleavy’s latest proclamation, he limited work to the proposed gas pipeline.
“It sounded like (the governor) is hopeful that there could be maybe some new developments, but that’s going to be his negotiation. I don’t believe the Legislature can do much now at this point,” said House Minority Leader DeLena Johnson, R-Palmer, at the Capitol on Monday.
With no legislation to consider, members of the House and Senate held pro forma “technical sessions” before adjourning until Friday, when a bill could be available.
Because no substantive action was expected on Monday, only two legislators traveled to Juneau on the first day of the special session. Speaker of the House Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham, and Johnson were joined by Rep. Sara Hannan, D-Juneau. In the Senate, Sen. Jesse Kiehl, D-Juneau, presided over an otherwise empty chamber.
The state House has 40 members, the state Senate has 20.
Down the hall from the House and Senate chambers, a group of cruise ship tourists watched a video about the history of the Capitol in a darkened committee room. At 10 a.m., there were more tourists than legislators.
Edgmon said that until the governor introduces a substantive bill, legislators will mostly stay away from the Capitol.
“The plan in the House is to have technical sessions, as you just saw, and to save time and certainly money (by) not bringing the Legislature back until we have something in front of us that’s worthy of bringing the entire body back … because it’s quite expensive to bring the Legislature back into session,” he said.
Typically, legislators have budgeted $1 million for a 30-day special session.
Fate of ‘pass-through’ tax is a key question
The current deadlock in negotiations is a “pass through entities tax” that would levy a form of the state’s corporate income tax on privately owned oil and gas companies, including Armstrong Oil and Gas, HEX, and Hilcorp.
That tax was added to the bill in the Senate to garner the votes of senators who are skeptical of the underlying bill, which would replace the state’s petroleum property tax with a tax on gas pumped through the as-yet-unbuilt pipeline.
The result would be billions of dollars in deferred tax revenue over a 30-year period for the state and municipalities along the route. But some lawmakers worry that the switch could also result in lower oil and gas production taxes because of writeoffs available for companies who spend on oil and gas infrastructure.
The new tax would offset that possibility, but has drawn opposition from the governor and from legislators who worry about the effects of imposing a tax on companies that are actively drilling for oil and gas within the state.
Hilcorp is expected to drill 27 gas wells in Cook Inlet this year, at a time when the region is facing a shortage of natural gas. Some legislators say Hilcorp lobbying was a key factor in the defeat of the compromise bill earlier this month.
Edgmon said he spoke with Dunleavy on Sunday. With the state’s primary election on Aug. 18 and general elections in November, time is running out for any chance of action, Edgmon said.
“Every day that goes by gets that much more difficult to reconvene the Legislature and to get them refocused on a bill,” Edgmon said.
“And so I think the clock is ticking very loudly right now, and the governor realizes that.”
Dunleavy cannot run for another term in office, and January will see a new governor and a new Legislature. If a bill doesn’t pass before then, Johnson said, “general fatigue” about the idea of a gas pipeline is part of the reason why.
“I think it’s the years of times that we tried to take this up and we never moved it forward. And so there’s just this sense that somehow it can’t be done,” she said. “I mean, I know there’s a sense of having this roadblock out there, and I think that’s kind of pervasive.”
House Judiciary committee chair Rep. Andrew Gray, D-Anchorage, and committee members Rep. Ashley Carrick, D-Fairbanks and Rep. Mia Costello, R-Anchorage, listen to Carol Beecher, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, answer questions about the division’s decision to disqualify a U.S. Senate candidate at a hearing on July 22, 2026. (Photo by Kyle Johansen for Rep. Gray’s office)
Members of the House Judiciary and State Affairs committees questioned Alaska Division of Elections director Carol Beecher on Wednesday about the state’s response to a U.S. Senate candidate with the same name as the incumbent — Dan Sullivan. It was the second investigatory hearing on the subject after elections officials failed to appear at an initial hearing in June. Alaska Lieutenant Governor Nancy Dahlstrom, who oversees the division, declined an invitation to appear.
At issue was the state’s decision to disqualify the U.S. Senate candidate Dan J. Sullivan of Petersburg and its determination that he was not a “good faith” candidate. The Alaska Supreme Court nixed that decision in late June.
Carol Beecher, the new director of the Alaska Division of Elections, answers questions from reporters on Thursday, Feb. 16, 2023. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
Beecher testified for nearly two hours and defended the division’s actions from the choice to disqualify Sullivan to the choice to list him without a party affiliation on the primary ballot. She also answered questions about how 3,500 Alaskan residents received notices that they have inactive voter status pending verification of citizenship.
Since the first legislative hearing, the Sullivan from Petersburg challenged the state’s decision and the fast-tracked case reached the Alaska Supreme Court. The court upheld a lower court’s ruling that Sullivan was eligible and said the division did not have the authority to add additional eligibility requirements, like whether a candidate was acting in “good faith,” beyond what is outlined in the U.S. Constitution.
Lawmakers raised concerns about how the division chose to list the candidates on the primary ballot. They asked Beecher about why the division chose to list the challenger as “Sullivan, Daniel J, Jr.” without his party affiliation as a registered Republican. It listed the incumbent senator as “Sullivan, Dan S.” and identified him as the incumbent and a Republican.
The two Sullivans are among 16 candidates for the U.S. Senate seat, including Democratic former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola, in the primary election on August 18. The top four vote-getters will advance to the general election on November 3.
Beecher defended the division’s position that Sullivan was running with the purpose to confuse voters. She cited complaints filed by national and state Republican groups, Sullivan’s party affiliation as Republican and campaign materials as evidence of his intention to mimic the U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan and confuse Alaska voters.
“The division acted then to prevent manipulation of the ballot and to protect voters from purposeful confusion, consistent with its responsibility to maintain fair, neutral, and trustworthy elections,” she said.
She noted that the division’s action was unprecedented, but said the situation merited such a response. “The division understood all along that this action could be challenged in court, and recognizes the court’s authority to review these important questions,” she said.
Judiciary committee chair Rep. Andrew Gray, D-Anchorage, had several questions about how the division determined Sullivan was not a “good faith” candidate. “Where is the evidence that he did this to trick voters, to mislead the voters whom we are here to protect?” he asked.
“The information that we were presented with painted for us a picture of someone who was trying to confuse the ballot,” Beecher replied.
Gray probed the division’s criteria later in the hearing.“In your opinion, Director Beecher, what does it mean for a candidate to have a good faith intention to serve?” Gray asked.
“In my opinion, that it would be someone who actually wants to win, and is running because they want to to get the seat,” Beecher replied. “And in this situation, all of the facts that were presented to the division were that this was an individual who was not running to be what I would call a true candidate. This individual was running to confuse the ballot. It was an intentional attempt to gain access to the ballot for the purpose of confusing.”
Lawmakers also raised this issue of of how the candidate was listed on the primary ballot after the state Supreme Court ruling. The challenger was listed as “Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr.” when he has publicly stated he goes by his first name as “Dan.”
Beecher said it was a choice by the division. “And it’s a bit of first in time, first in place, that Dan Sullivan has already been on the ballot prior, as Dan Sullivan is known as Dan Sullivan,” she said, referring to the incumbent senator. “So it was simply a way to differentiate between the two.”
Rep. Genevieve Mina, D-Anchorage, asked Beecher about the division’s decision not to list Sullivan’s Republican party affiliation.
Beecher said she believes it was also within the division’s authority to do so. “Whether or not it has to be on the ballot, we believe that has been left to the discretion of the division, and in line with that, we made that determination,” she said.
“It also could still be litigated,” Beecher added.
Rep. Ashley Carrick, D-Fairbanks and chair of the House State Affairs Committee, said she was concerned about the precedent and the agency’s discretion to remove party information that could be informative for voters.
“Having his party affiliation may help those voters feel like they’re more informed and directed to a candidate they would rather support,” she said. “But not having his affiliation included there seems to provide less information and be more confusing.”
Photo courtesy of Peter Metcalfe via his Facebook post
NOTN- Residents living near the Governor’s Mansion are calling on city officials to address their safety concerns surrounding an “armed encampment” following an incident earlier this month where a young black bear was shot and later euthanized by the Department of Fish and Game due to its fatal injuries.
According to a post on the Juneau Community Collective, concerned residents living above Capital Avenue have sent a letter to the City and Borough of Juneau and nearby property owners saying the July 9 incident has prompted renewed concerns about conditions at the encampment.
The post described the site as an “armed encampment” and said residents are seeking a long-term solution to what they say are ongoing public safety issues and “outrages’ in the neighborhood.
Residents are asking others who have witnessed incidents associated with the encampment to come forward.
Below is the full letter written by Peter Metcalfe with the exclusion of addresses and personal information for resident’s privacy.
To the officials and offices named above:
The encampment on Capital Avenue, a longtime obnoxious nuisance, has become a threat to public safety.
Earlier this month, a person living in that camp shot a young black bear that was up a tree at the edge of the encampment. The animal was grievously wounded, and a Fish and Game officer had to track it down to put the young bear out of its misery.
The shots that wounded the bear were fired upward, likely toward the Fosbee, a 30-unit apartment building directly above the site. The apartment building is in our densely populated Governor’s Mansion neighborhood.
We live directly across from the Fosbee Apartments. We ask that the squatter camp on Capital Ave. be removed before someone is seriously hurt.
According to the CBJ Parcel Viewer, this encampment is on city land and shares boundaries with property owned by AEL&P, the Central Council, and a privately owned parcel (701 Capital Ave). All these properties are adversely affected by the encampment and its widely scattered piles of garbage, which are irresistible to bears.
This did not come out of nowhere. For years, the camp has created conditions no neighborhood should have to endure: clouds of toxic smoke, garbage piles measured by the truckload, and human and household waste left directly on the ground. Discarded hypodermic needles litter the area around the camp and have been dragged with other refuse by bears into the surrounding neighborhood, presenting hazards to people, pets, and wildlife.
When one of us stopped by to ask two of the occupants about the toxic smoke, their twitchy behavior was consistent with heavy methamphetamine or similar stimulant use.
Frequently, in the pre-dawn hours, residents are woken by disturbances from the site, where drugs are used openly and what appear to be drug sales occur. Now that we know the people in this camp are armed and willing to fire weapons with no regard for who is nearby, we have reason to fear for our safety.
Since the encampment is on city-owned property, CBJ clearly has the authority and responsibility to act, and its ownership removes any question of deferring to another party. The city’s own guidance calls for intervention once an encampment repeatedly harms the surrounding community, with trash accumulation and open drug use named as the triggers. This camp crossed that line years ago and has now escalated to gunfire toward occupied homes. Recent court decisions have also made clear that CBJ may enforce limits on camping on public land, so this is well within its authority.
Clearing the camp by itself will not fix this. The city has collaborated with AEL&P to remove encampments like this that have crossed the line, and with the Central Council to clean up this site.
We are now asking the city, through the Division of Lands & Resources and the Police Department, to clear the Capital Avenue camp, clean up the site, and then secure the area against re-encampment so that this stops being a recurring hazard, and to coordinate any support services the occupants may need as part of that process.
Photographs documenting current conditions at the site are attached to this letter.
We would appreciate a written response identifying who is handling this matter and what will be done. Thank you for your attention to a serious hazard in the heart of our community.
Respectfully,
Sandra and Peter Metcalfe, and on behalf of the following residents of the Governor’s Mansion neighborhood.
Michelle Sparck (center) poses for a photo with Bering Straits Native Corporation summer interns in Nome on July 20, 2026 during a voter outreach trip. (Photo courtesy of Michelle Sparck)
A Native-led voter mobilization group is working to boost Alaska Native voter education and turnout this election season.
Get Out the Native Vote is a non-partisan effort now underway to reach voters across the state’s vast and varied geography and get them to cast ballots in the primary elections on August 18 and the midterm elections on November 3.
Alaska Native voters make up roughly one in four Alaskan voters, said Michelle Sparck, director of the initiative, who is Cup’ik from the Southwest village of Chevak. She said part of voter education is raising awareness of when Alaska Native voters came out in force and reached a peak voter turnout of 66% in 1982. Some regions had nearly 80% voter turnout, Sparck said. That’s when decisions on subsistence policy, abortion and moving the Alaska State Capitol from Juneau were on the ballot.
“I call it the birth of the Alaska Native super voter. That generation made it a cultural value,” she said. “With that political capital that the 1980s generation built, they were able to own their sovereignty and self-determination tools.”
An Alaska voter drops their ballot into a ballot box on Nov. 1, 2024, in Anchorage City Hall. (Photo by Andrew Kitchenman/Alaska Beacon)
But voter turnout has declined significantly in the decades since. In the last election in 2024, 30% of Alaska Native voters cast their ballots. That meant Alaska Native voters made up 11% of state voters, according to data compiled by Sparck.
The mission of the campaign is to turn that decline around and reach historic highs again.
“This is what we’re capable of, and this is what this is our potential, and and I’m so excited to hold the mirror up to the communities because a lot of them really just had no idea what their performance is over the last, you know, 40-some years,” Sparck said.
“The challenge to the community is to say: own our power. We need to get out and vote,” she said. “Not should we go out and vote, we should make informed decisions.”
Get Out the Native Vote is supported by a partnership between the Alaska Federation of Natives, First Nations Institute and Cook Inlet Tribal Council with some funding from private foundations and the Carter Center, which was founded by former President Jimmy Carter. The campaign is collaborating with local, state and Tribal governments; regional Native corporations, organizations and service providers; schools; prisons and community groups to host voter education and outreach events around the state. Sparck spoke on a video call on Tuesday after returning from a voter outreach visit in Nome, and before heading to visit Utqiagvik, then the coastal community of Wainwright.
The August 18 primary falls within the summer subsistence fishing season, which is challenging for many people to find time to vote, Sparck said, but she’s found a helpful analogy.
“We’ve realized that if we describe primaries like basketball regionals, light bulbs go off their heads,” she said, smiling. “You have to win at regionals in order to make it to state. So a lot of people now know what primaries mean.”
Spark said 131 voting precincts in the state, more than a quarter, rely entirely on the U.S. Postal Service and air carriers to receive and mail their ballots.
Get Out the Native Vote working to make sure post offices are staffed, and helping the Alaska Division of Elections to recruit staff and volunteers so that each precinct has elections workers, bilingual poll workers and outreach workers to help with Native language translations. Sparck is also finding youth volunteers for a “Youth at the Booth” program, whose goal is to have two 17 and 18 year old volunteers assist at polling places and learn about elections in the process.
Particularly in the Arctic, the initiative is partnering with the North Slope Borough and local community leaders to make sure all precincts are staffed and open, in hopes of avoiding repeats of past election years where rural residents could not vote due to issues with staffing poll workers. In 2024, polling stations in rural villages of Wales and Kaktovik never opened. In Northwest and Western Alaska, voting hours were reduced in Marshall, Shaktoolik,Diomede and Kobuk. Primary ballots arrived late in at least 14 other Native villages.
“I get a lot of (precinct) chairs calling me before an election saying, ‘I don’t think I can do this.’ And we’re like, ‘You can do this. Your community can’t vote without you,’” she said. The organization’s goal is to have a well-staffed polling station in each village.
Alaska Native communities have also had the highest rates of rejected ballots, according to the Alaska Federation of Natives. One of the main issues is an incomplete witness signature on the ballot. In 2022, one in eight rural mail-in ballots were rejected, totalling more than 7,500 ballots rejected from rural Alaska.
A bipartisan elections bill that would have removed the witness signature requirement, among many other measures aimed at improving voting access, passed the Alaska State Legislature this year, but Gov. Mike Dunleavy vetoed it.
An 18 year old Ahtna shareholder registers to vote at a Get Out the Native Vote event at their Convention in June 2026 in Glennallen. (Photo courtesy of Michelle Sparck)
Between now and November, the campaign is working to distribute voter information, with guides on how to register, cast a ballot and find more information on state and federal candidates.
“So we’re trying to make things easier, but we’re building the plane as we’re flying it,” Sparck said. “You know, it’s still a work in progress, and we’re glad to have the alliances we have.”
This year, the annual Alaska Federation of Natives convention, where thousands of people from across the state convene in Anchorage, will be held one week later than usual to accommodate early voting at City Hall across the street. “So we’re excited that we’re going to have an ability to send people across the street to go vote or drop off their absentee ballots,” Sparck said.
The campaign is planning to hold voter outreach events in Alaska Department of Corrections facilities where roughly 40% of incarcerated people awaiting trial and sentencing are eligible to vote. Organizers are also working with service provider organizations to reach people who are unhoused or housing insecure, as well as foster youth who are turning 18, and inform them about their voting rights.
“We try to recognize every avenue to access voters, and especially those that are low propensity or disenfranchised. We try to meet their needs in every way, so it doesn’t mean we’re doing it 24/7, but it means we are trying to dedicate time and create the allyship and coordination with organizations that are more intimate with those groups to to best deliver that,” she said.
Get Out The Native Vote shares outreach events and regional voting updates on their Facebook page, and website at aknativevote.com.
Michelle Sparck (left) and Get Out the Native Vote volunteers smile at a tabling event in Bethel. (Photo courtesy of Michelle Sparck)
Wooden gavel with books in background. Law and justice concept
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
Wooden gavel with books in background. Courtesy of Alaska Beacon.
Two of Alaska’s largest labor organizations have sued Gov. Mike Dunleavy for failing to promptly fill two seats on the board that governs the state’s public employee pension plans.
The Alaska AFL-CIO, National Education Association-Alaska and five individuals filed suit Wednesday in Anchorage Superior Court, seeking a court order that would require the governor to fill seats on the Alaska Retirement Management Board that are designated for the teachers’ and public employees’ unions.
According to the complaint, the seats have been vacant since March 1. The unions sent lists of possible nominees to the governor four months before that, on Dec. 1.
Under state law, “a vacancy on the board of trustees shall be promptly filled.”
The unions sent a warning letter to the governor’s office in late May about the issue.
Stephen Cox, the attorney general designee whose confirmation was rejected by the Alaska Legislature this year, responded to the message. Now working as Counsel to the Governor, Cox said the law reserving seats for the unions “warrants further analysis, as it potentially encroaches upon the Governor’s constitutional appointment authority.”
Cox said the governor will be requesting a formal legal opinion from acting Attorney General Cori Mills.
“The administration does not comment on lawsuits,” said Jeff Turner, the governor’s communications director, when reached for comment.
The Beacon contacted the Department of Law on Monday afternoon as well, seeking comment about the lawsuit. It did not respond by 8 a.m. the following day.
The plaintiffs are being represented by attorney Scott Kendall, who has frequently fought cases against the Dunleavy administration.
By phone on Monday afternoon, Kendall said the issue is “very important” because the board handles billions of dollars’ worth of investments on behalf of state residents.
Two board meetings have already taken place without union representatives.
“This isn’t the, ‘Oops, this slipped through the cracks sort of issue.’ The new nominees were put forward by both unions three months before the prior terms expired. Those filings were acknowledged by the Department of Revenue, which handles this. So everything was done timely,” he said.
In the complaint, the plaintiffs state that if the issue goes to trial, Cox should not have a role because state law requires the Department of Law — through staff attorneys or hired counsel — to represent the state in legal issues.
Kendall said the legality of laws constraining a governor’s appointment powers have been repeatedly tried in court and upheld.
“To be honest, it’s befuddling. There’s a very clear statute. There’s a very clear regulation. They say these people shall be appointed promptly, and they shall be from lists from these two groups,” he said. “So I think it’s quite honestly bizarre that we’re even in this situation, but here we are nonetheless.”
A summary sheet is seen during ballot review on Tuesday, Aug. 27, 2024, at the headquarters of the Alaska Division of Elections in Juneau. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
A summary sheet is seen during ballot review on Tuesday, Aug. 27, 2024, at the headquarters of the Alaska Division of Elections in Juneau. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
The first two votes in Alaska’s Aug. 18 primary election have already been cast.
According to records published by the absentee and petition office of the Alaska Division of Elections, two voters — one in South Carolina and another in Hawaii — returned their ballots on July 17.
Thousands more voters will cast their ballots in the coming weeks. Absentee ballots were mailed to overseas and military voters starting July 2, and absentee ballots will start going out to the general public on July 24. Early in-person voting starts Aug. 3.
In the primary, voters will pick one candidate for each office. The top four vote-getters for each race, regardless of party, will advance to the general election on Nov. 3.
If there are four or fewer candidates running for a particular office, all candidates advance to the general election.
For Alaska’s statewide races, that isn’t an issue. There are 17 people running for governor, each running on a combined ticket with a lieutenant governor candidate:
If one of the top four finishers withdraws from the race, they are automatically replaced with the fifth-place finisher. If there are multiple withdrawals, the replacement process continues until there are four candidates.
Registration for the primary election has closed, but Alaskans may register for the general election until Oct. 4. Residents can check their voter registration at myvoterportal.alaska.gov.
Fishing boats in the Robert E. Galovin Small Boat Harbor in Sand Point are seen on Aug 7, 2025, before heading out to the Area M fishery. (Photo by Theo Greenly)
A legislative audit committee instructed the state auditor to investigate the past three years of process and legal compliance of the board tasked with developing policy and managing Alaska’s fisheries.
Rep. Louise Stutes, R-Kodiak and chair of the House Fisheries Committee, made the request for the special audit of the Alaska Board of Fisheries. The bicameral Legislative Audit and Budget Committee approved it at a hearing on Thursday.
Rep. Louise Stutes, R-Kodiak, speaks on the House floor on the last day of the regular legislative session on May 20, 2026. (Photo by Corinne Smith/Alaska Beacon)
“The breadth and frequency of stakeholder complaints about the Board’s process make it clear the Board has lost the public’s trust. As Chair of the House Fisheries Committee, I am compelled to act,” Stutes wrote.
She said the board has been “increasingly characterized as lacking transparency, unethical, and/or unlawful.”
The seven-member Board of Fisheries is appointed by Gov. Mike Dunleavy and confirmed by the Legislature. Each member serves a three year term. The legislative audit committee authorized an examination of the board’s activity from an Oct 12, 2023 meeting through July 1 of this year.
In a letter requesting the audit, Stutes cited concern that board members have “ethical impairments,” and pointed to recent action by the Acting Attorney General Cori Mills overruling the board’s decision to implement some fishing restrictions in an Aleutian Island fishery, Area M, as evidence.
In an unusual move, Mills stepped in and voided the regulations passed by the Board of Fish in February that implemented restrictions on the Area M fishery to allow more salmon to pass through to Western Alaska spawning streams. Area M has been the center of years of fierce debate and growing concerns from subsistence and Tribal communities in Western Alaska, where salmon runs have reached crisis lows.
Following the board’s February action, Aleutian fishing groups, local and Tribal governments filed ethics complaints against several board members citing conflicts of interest, then a lawsuit challenging the board’s action. The acting attorney general voided the decision in May. In response to that action — and in support of Western Alaska subsistence and Tribal communities — advocates filed a motion to reconsider that challenged the Attorney General’s authority to void the regulation changes and asked a court to review the decision. A judge denied the request.
The Board of Fish’s chair did not respond to a request for comment on the audit on Monday.
On Monday, a spokesperson for the Alaska Department of Law said that following the Attorney General’s disapproval memo, the board has an opportunity to reconsider the regulations to the Area M fishery “as long as they conform to the proper process.”
“In general, disapproval memos are rare as we are normally able to work with the respective state agencies throughout the regulations process and ensure the regulations comply with all necessary statutory requirements,” said Sam Curtis, a public information officer with the department. “In this case, the Department of Law took action pursuant to the Ethics Act and those proceedings are confidential by law. We cannot disclose any further information.”
Legislative committee approves the audit request
In the hearing on Thursday, Sen. Scott Kawaki, D-Fairbanks questioned the motives of the special audit request. He said claims that the board actions lacked transparency or were unethical were “rather inflammatory.”
“I want to make sure that the request is targeted at the board process and whether the processes are being adhered to, and so it’s not an opinion,” he said. “If there’s a disagreement, you can litigate and you can go to Superior Court, and that seems like that process should be separate.”
Stutes told the twelve House and Senate committee members present that the audit would focus on the board’s process and procedures only, not actions taken by the board.
“We’re not addressing any decisions that have been made by the Board of Fish. Our intent through this audit is to address the process in which these decisions are being made,” Stutes said.
Kris Curtis, a Legislative Auditor for the state and that leads the Division of Legislative Audit told lawmakers at the hearing that her office has extensive experience auditing state boards — including the Board of Fish and the Board of Game — and that the state audit would adhere to the criteria outlined in the request. That includes compliance with fisheries regulations and statutes, public notice and comment requirements and compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act and Executive Branch Ethics Act.
“We conduct all of our audits in accordance with auditing standards that require that we maintain our independence, both in fact and appearance. I have no concerns about that,” Curtis said. “To be able to address these objectives using objective criteria, we will gather sufficient, appropriate evidence, like we always do for every performance audit we issue, and we will come back to the committee with an independent, objective report.”
Curtis replied to lawmakers’ questions about the Attorney General’s decision by saying it would be evaluated by auditors.
“The answer is absolutely,” she said. “It’s informative. It’s factual. If we didn’t, we would be deficient. We will also be collecting other evidence. We will be having interviews. We’ll be reaching out to stakeholders. We’ll be examining meeting meetings. We’ll be looking at meeting minutes. We’ll be looking at the process. We’ll be doing all kinds of audit procedures.”
Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage, asked her what would happen if auditors found the Attorney General acted improperly.
Curtis said her office would assess the case law cited in the decision. “If I found the Attorney General acted inappropriately, I would have to probably consult legislative, legal or outside counsel, depending on the subject and whatever we’re looking at, to inform us, the legislative audit team, about what decision they made. It’s not uncommon to seek additional legal advice when evaluating something,” she said.
House Speaker Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham, and a former commercial fisherman, acknowledged that the Board of Fish has often drawn criticism and controversy.
“You’ve audited just about every moving thing out there, if I recall, as a long-term legislator, and this issue is always going to be controversial,” he said. “There is a lot of concern out there on a number of fronts about the Board of Fisheries, as there always is.”
Edgmon noted that the auditors’ recommendations can be taken up by the Legislature if needed.
Curtis said auditors will work closely with the Board of Fish, who will have an opportunity to respond to the audits’ findings and recommendations. With the committee’s approval, Curtis said her office will likely begin the audit investigation in August and complete its work in four to six months.
State senators crowd around Matt Kissinger, commercial director of the Alaska Gasline Development Corp., shortly before lawmakers voted Thursday, July 16, 2026, on a compromise version of a tax break intended to benefit the trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline. (Corinne Smith photo/Alaska Beacon
On Wednesday, one day before the Alaska Legislature voted on a multibillion-dollar tax break for the proposed trans-Alaska gas pipeline, Rep. Calvin Schrage, I-Anchorage, gave the pipeline’s lead developer a sneak preview of the bill.
For weeks, Schrage had been in charge of negotiating a compromise version of the tax break that could get approval from the state House, Senate and Gov. Mike Dunleavy.
He walked Glenfarne Alaska President Adam Prestidge through the compromise, explaining section by section how skeptics in the state Senate had given ground on labor issues and project timing. Skeptics also were no longer insisting that the pipeline be subject to a revised tax on privately held oil and gas firms.
Given those changes, Schrage asked: Could Glenfarne support the bill?
According to Schrage, Prestidge said it could, and Glenfarne would publish a news release to that effect.
Glenfarne disputes Schrage’s account, and that difference in perspectives appears to have contributed to a failed vote on Thursday that killed the bill — and possibly with it, the current version of the gas pipeline project.
“The governor’s probably in a bad mood,” said Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka, “but he was definitely told on several occasions when we were negotiating this bill that this is our last and final offer. The bill goes down, it’s dead. There’s no playing around.”
Glenfarne has repeatedly said that changes to the state’s petroleum property tax are needed in order to get financing for the pipeline project, which is expected to cost as much as $54.5 billion.
The bill wouldn’t have guaranteed a pipeline, but as Rep. Will Stapp, R-Fairbanks, said earlier this year, the lack of a bill would guarantee not having a pipeline.
The tax break would require the state and local governments to forgo more than $10 billion in revenue over 30 years, and some legislators are skeptical of the proposal. Getting their votes required a compromise.
A tax revision, variously called an “S Corp tax” or “pass-through entities tax” would apply certain income taxes to some companies that don’t currently pay them. It was included in the pipeline bill to win the votes of skeptical lawmakers, but prior versions of the tax have drawn opposition and led to an impasse.
On Thursday, after Schrage told fellow lawmakers that Glenfarne supported the new version, a bipartisan, bicameral committee voted 4-2 to advance it to the full House and Senate.
No news release came, and Schrage talked to Prestidge again.
Hilcorp, an oil and gas firm owned by billionaire businessman Jeffery Hildebrand, is the operator of the Prudhoe Bay and Point Thompson oil and gas units on the North Slope. Those units would supply gas for the pipeline that Glenfarne intends to build.
Hilcorp is also the company that would be most affected by the revised tax.
“What I heard from Glenfarne is that Hilcorp told them that if they came out in support of the bill, that they would make all their contractual negotiations impossible for them, and essentially threatened to use their future negotiations, which they knew they would have to enter into, to leverage them and and make things incredibly difficult,” Schrage said.
After Thursday’s committee vote, pro-development groups issued a statement asking legislators to vote down the revised bill, citing the tax revision and its potential effect on natural gas prices in the state.
“When you tax entities that are providing you with a commodity, it will increase the end cost of said commodity,” said Steve Wackowski, president and CEO of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, a trade group that signed the statement.
Before the state Senate voted on Thursday afternoon, lawmakers there learned that Glenfarne and the Alaska Gasline Development Corp. — a state-owned firm developing the pipeline with Glenfarne — might have issues with the S Corp provision after all.
AGDC owns 25% of the gas line project, while Glenfarne owns 75%.
They called for a brief break in order to talk with Prestidge and Matt Kissinger, the commercial director of AGDC, in private.
Kissinger told senators that AGDC was fine with gasline-related provisions of the bill but had no comment on the pass-through provision because AGDC isn’t a tax-paying entity.
“They wouldn’t touch that with a 10-foot pole because they answer to the (governor),” said Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka on Friday.
By phone to senators on Thursday, Prestidge said Glenfarne opposed the S Corp provision.
Members of the 14-person Senate majority caucus left that meeting with no agreement on whether or not to pass the bill. It ultimately passed the Senate by a single vote after Sen. Matt Claman, D-Anchorage, changed from “no” to “yes.”
Before the House could vote, Gov. Mike Dunleavy issued a statement saying he opposed the latest version of the bill and would veto it if it passed the House.
No veto was needed: Only 19 members of the House voted for the bill, two short of what was needed to advance it.
Only one of the House’s 21 Republicans — Rep. Louise Stutes, R-Kodiak — voted for the bill; all of the House’s Democrats and independents voted for it. That flipped a vote on a prior version, when opposition came from a handful of Democrats and independents.
Several Republicans who voted against the bill said they did so because it would affect companies that are drilling for oil and gas in Cook Inlet — Hilcorp, as well as HEX and Furie. Armstrong Oil and Gas, a firm active on the North Slope, would also be affected.
Partially because of corporate secrecy and partially because of the haste with which the compromise advanced, there was no information on how much each company would pay.
In addition, members of the all-Republican House minority caucus were excluded from the closed-door negotiating that led to the compromise bill. The exact text of the final version came as a surprise to them.
“All of a sudden, we would have a tax on our three most important companies, which would be Hilcorp, HEX, and Armstrong,” said Rep. Kevin McCabe, R-Big Lake. “I think (voting no) was the right thing to do, and my whole caucus apparently agrees, as well as the Senate minority.”
Schrage, who voted for the bill, disagreed.
“The bill worked for Glenfarne and would have allowed them to keep moving the project forward and given them a shot. They were happy and pleased with the work product. I don’t think they ever loved the S Corp provision, but it didn’t harm them. And it was only when Hillcorp came in to essentially leverage the parties at play that everything fell apart,” Schrage said afterward.
Glenfarne disputes Schrage’s account of what occurred, calling it “misleading and incorrect.”
“Glenfarne didn’t take a position on a bill we hadn’t seen, and once we saw the bill we immediately opposed it, including our June 19 statement to the media. This tax increases commercial and economic uncertainty in Alaska for the whole industry working together to support this project and bring energy relief. A $16 project energy price cap and tax-driven cost increases make project economics increasingly challenged,” said spokesman Tim Fitzpatrick by email.
Fitzpatrick’s statement refers to a clause in the gas pipeline bill that caps the price of natural gas for Alaskans. If taxes rise on Hilcorp, it could then raise the price of North Slope gas it sells into the pipeline, making it difficult for Glenfarne to meet the required price, said those familiar with the issue.
“It’s frustrating that Hillcorp has so much influence over the state of Alaska,” said Sen. Lyman Hoffman, D-Bethel on Friday. “Glenfarne or the governor wouldn’t stand up to them for the better interests of the state of Alaska.”
Schrage says he has phone records and text messages to back up his account.
“I think the evidence is pretty clear,” Schrage said. “The governor, Glenfarne and minority Republicans all indicated support for the bill passed out of the conference committee minus the closure of the passthrough entity tax loophole which the entire AKLNG project was exempted from. Given that exemption and the support for the rest of the bill, what possible reason would Glenfarne have to oppose the bill other than pressure from Hilcorp?”
Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage, took to social media on Thursday to accuse Dunleavy of working for “a Texas billionaire,” the owner of Hilcorp.
“Yeah, that’s bulls**t. OK, that’s bulls**t. He’s just — and you could quote me, that’s bulls**t. OK, he’s a bulls**tter,” Dunleavy said of Wielechowski, speaking to reporters after a news conference on Thursday evening. “He is one of a handful in the Senate and the Democrats that are going to try and kill this gas line for the very people they purport to represent — poor people, single moms with kids — that their bills are going through the roof. Why doesn’t he give a rip about them? Why doesn’t he care about them?”
“Why is he insisting on an S Corp in this bill?” Dunleavy asked.
Because Dunleavy would veto a standalone bill, Wielechowski said afterward.
“The reason that it hasn’t been passed is because he’s threatened to veto it, and you need 45 votes to override that, and there’s zero chance we’re going to get it,” Wielechowski said.
Alaska is facing a long-term deficit, with spending on services and the Permanent Fund dividend expected to greatly exceed the amount of available revenue. Legislators have been trying since 2017 to pass a bill containing the S Corp provision.
Dunleavy has vetoed numerous standalone tax bills, saying repeatedly that he will not approve any that are not part of a comprehensive plan to bring state expenses and revenue into line over the long term.
“He’s killed all of the new revenue bills that we’ve offered,” said Sen. Cathy Giessel, R-Anchorage.
“This is a huge gap in our revenue stream. It is an inequality in our tax structure,” she said, noting that other oil companies pay the tax that Hilcorp would pay. “How is it that Conoco and Exxon have been able to pay this tax and still continue to explore on the North Slope?”
Dunleavy said insisting on an S Corp provision in the gas pipeline bill amounts to hostage-taking.
“So you can’t get an S corp bill passed that’s unvetted, that nobody really knows what it does, unless you hold the people hostage with a gas bill? Well, that’s a representative for you. That’s a senator for you. That’s pretty sad, to be perfectly honest with you,” he said. “Pretty sad.”
