By Wyatt Young Nelson and Thomas Fenoseff
Alaskans voting in the November 2026 election should choose YES for Ballot Measure 2. We need to rid ourselves of the wolf in sheep’s clothing that is ranked choice voting (RCV). RCV exemplifies the scale of out-of-state efforts to infiltrate Alaskan politics. Voting for Ballot Measure 2 is the first step in returning the power over Alaskan elections to the voters.
We examined publicly available campaign finance records and other sources to explore who is funding both sides of the debate. Each side accuses the other of being funded primarily by out-of-state dark money donors. This is true of both groups, but it lacks the key context of the scale of their reliance on out-of-state dark money funding and its potential influence. According to APOC campaign finance disclosures, as of 10/26/2026, the organization “Protect Alaska’s Elections” received approximately $31,214,908.02 between 2020 and 2026; 97.27% was funded from out of state¹. “Repeal Now AK” received $4,054,937.81 between 2020 and 2026; 64.19% was from out-of-state donors².
It is important to look at the history of Ranked Choice Voting, the additional election changes included in the original ballot measure, and its funding in Alaska to gain a clearer understanding of the systemic nature of this issue. Ranked Choice Voting was first introduced as a ballot initiative for the 2020 election. While it is believed by some Alaskans that Anchorage-based attorney Scott Kendall was behind the push for RCV and the related changes, it quickly became a collective action issue, with Alaskans forming groups to support and oppose the ballot initiative.
The group in support of the 2020 initiative was “Alaskans for Better Elections.” This pro-RCV group was well funded with $6,834,500.32 (99.7% of which was from out of state)³ by organizations from outside of Alaska (Unite America, Action Now Initiative, Unite and Renew Fund, 4 Score 7, RepresentUs Sixteen Thirty Fund, Fairvote, Arnold Ventures, Western Futures Fund, American Promise, Voter’s Right to Know, and John E. Palmer (chair of Ranked the Vote)).
In contrast to their opponents, the 2020 anti-RCV campaign operated with significantly fewer financial resources, receiving $465,125 (30.4% of which was from out of state⁴).
It is also of note that, in 2020, the groups who pushed for the implementation of RCV also attached to it an “open,” top-four jungle primary system and changes to the campaign finance system. An open, jungle primary system ensures that those four candidates who received the most votes enter the general election. Supporters presented it as having open primaries for voters to participate in and having campaign finance reform to better delineate the use of out-of-state money for funding campaigns in Alaska.
To address the first claim: Alaska already had open primaries where registered independent, undeclared, or unaffiliated voters could select a Republican or a Democrat primary ballot⁵. The actual effect of the primary change was to allow registered Democrats to vote for Republican candidates in primaries, and potentially vice versa. This weakens the ability of registered conservative voters to influence their parties’ candidates; it also threatens the freedom of association of parties in relation to the privileges of membership⁶.
To the second claim: the campaign finance changes created limits on donations to candidates by individuals and groups, required “true sourcing,” and created a legal definition of dark money/true source⁷. However, what is not mentioned is the substantial loophole left by the finance law in relation to ballot initiatives, where there is no prohibition on the amounts of money provided by outside groups or political action committees⁸.
If the measure was truly about controlling or highlighting the presence of outside influence on Alaska’s politics, why limit it only to candidates? Ballot initiatives are the easiest way for Alaskans to effect change when the legislature is unwilling or unable to act on the will of the people. Why eliminate one vulnerability but leave the other?
We offer this explanation: the outside influences behind the 2020 RCV/ballot initiative push recognized two realities. First, traditional voters in primaries are conservative, informed, registered voters deeply aligned with their party values. Second, the primaries control who appears on general election ballots⁹.
This ballot initiative was really about expanding outside influence, not reducing it. Ballot initiatives are about issues important to the general public: the proponents of RCV recognized the power of ballot initiatives to mobilize voters who are less likely to be politically active or to have a nuanced understanding of the issues and the candidates. The proponents seek to leverage these moderate voters activated by the ballot initiatives to draw support away from the more hardline candidates regularly supported by the conservative, traditional primary voters.
The RCV/ballot initiative outcome opened a political Pandora’s box for outside groups. It created the ability to legislate without legislators. By not eliminating out-of-state funding for ballot initiatives, monied groups can introduce ballot initiatives in line with their national priorities. It reduces the ballot initiative, an honorable institution of Alaskan politics, a treasured stylus of the people’s will, into a shameful subservience to gilded interests.
A time for choosing is upon you, Alaska. Will you vote YES ON 2 and preserve our power for future generations or surrender our sovereignty?
Wyatt Young Nelson was born-and-raised in Alaska and has been involved in both efforts to repeal ranked-choice voting.
Thomas Fenoseff is a conservative activist in Alaska.
Sources
- Campaign finance total derived from APOC reports located at (Campaign Disclosure: Income).
- Campaign finance total derived from APOC reports located at (Campaign Disclosure: Income).
- Disclosure Form View (This is the final-year report where the total figure comes from; the amount of dark money comes from the first-, second-, third-, and fourth-quarter reports).
- Disclosure Form View (This is where the total figure comes from; the amount of dark money comes from the first-, second-, third-, and fourth-quarter reports).
- Alaska’s Primary Election History – Division of Elections.
- Definition of freedom of association (Overview of Freedom of Association | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress).
- Alaska Statutes § 15.13.070 (2025) – Limitations on amount of political contributions; Alaska Statutes § 15.13.400 (2025) – Definitions.
- Alaska Statutes § 15.13.070 (2025) – Limitations on amount of political contributions.
- Open vs. Closed Primaries: How Election Rules Shape Who Votes | Unite America.
If you have not voted yet, make your plan and go vote!
MRAK web content published until the end of election day won’t require a subscription to access. After election day, most web content will require readers to sign up for a free account. Free subscribers receive the Must Read Weekly sent on Mondays (unsubscribe from emails anytime and retain web access). You can also support Must Read Alaska with a paid subscription. See subscriptions for details.
