Thursday, November 13, 2025
Home Blog Page 1174

Fraud alert: Election system needs greater protection against corruption

30

By CRAIG E CAMPBELL

Do you think the election process in America is corrupt?  The process unfolding in Nevada, Michigan, Pennsylvania and other states is confirming, on a minute by minute basis, that voter integrity is not being protected and voter manipulation is happening.  

How can you trust an election outcome if you doubt the legitimacy of the process?  

  • A box of mail, which included three trays of absentee ballots, was dumped into a ditch in Wisconsin.    
  • Military ballots from Luzerne County, Pennsylvania were found discarded.
  • Poll watchers in Philadelphia, who had validated Watcher Certificates from the Philadelphia County Board of Election, were denied entry into a polling place.
  • People illegally handed out campaign brochures to voters while waiting in line to vote at the Olney Recreation Center in Philadelphia.
  • Mail-in ballots received after election day with no postage date are counted. No way to verify that the ballot was completed on or before the election. Is the United States Postal Service complicate in voter fraud?  Is the Division of Elections allowing post-election ballots to be counted to skew the results a certain way?

Voter integrity is a cornerstone of democracy. Without it, our election process is subject to fraud and abuse, resulting in a lack of confidence that those elected were, in fact, the choice of the people. Voter integrity requires five fundamental absolutes. 

The first and foremost is to ensure that every American has the right to vote. 

The second is validation that the voter voting is the registered voter and not someone else.

The third is a requirement that every voter be allowed to vote without any undue interference or external influence.

The forth is that each vote is actually counted, as was cast by the voter.  Not changed, discarded, or disallowed.

The fifth is transparency, to ensure that every vote is counted as was marked by the voter.  

As President Ronald Reagan once said about working with the Soviets, “Trust but verify.”  So it is with politics. Observing the ballot counting process protects the integrity of the system.  It has been a traditional method of voter verification for decades.  

I am appalled by the actions taken by some election officials in this election to potentially manipulate the outcome. Allowing a vote counting process to be conducted by denying poll watchers their legal ability to observe the vote counting process creates the perception that unlawful activities are permissible.   

I am equally offended by election officials that have permitted ballots counted that were not signed, could not be verified that the vote cast was actually completed by the registered voter, counted people who no longer lived in that district or state, had died, or it could not be confirmed that the ballot was cast on or prior to election day.

It should not be this way. Voter registrations can be verified and purged of individuals no longer eligible to vote in a specific location.  Elections can be conducted with full transparency and accountability, where all participants can agree on the end result, win or loss.  I speak with scar tissues from past elections.  

While serving as Alaska’s lieutenant governor, I had the honor (or rather the responsibility) to oversee our states election process during a very contentious election cycle. As you may recall, that year Joe Miller ran against Senator Lisa Murkowski in the Republican primary. Joe Miller won the primary. Senator Murkowski subsequently filed to run in the general election as a write-in candidate.  

In the 2010 General Election, Miller garnered 35% of the vote; however, 40% of the total votes were write-ins that were not counted until after election day.  To finalize the general election vote count, a hand count was conducted in Juneau. Both Miller and Murkowski were allowed to have poll watchers at the site during the count. 

In fact, poll watchers from both sides were able to look directly over the shoulder of any person counting votes to verify the vote. They were able to challenge the marking or spelling of each and every ballot cast. At the end, I affirmed that Murkowski prevailed.  Miller sued the State and lost in court. He conceded in December.

Compare that to today, where in Philadelphia poll watchers were restricted from being in close proximity of the people actually counting the vote. How can you verify the marking if restricted from being close? How can you verify the legitimacy of the ballot? This restriction on an open process only leads one to conclude there must be some nefarious actions being taken to manipulate the voting outcome. 

Maybe I’m wrong, but their actions certainly don’t convince me I am.

Objective voter verification is an absolute requirement if we want to convince the public that elections are fair. I would submit that verification by government officials alone is not convincing. Verification needs to be done by all affected parties, which means candidate representatives that have been identified as certified poll watchers. This does not create an unfair election process.  Rather, it confirms the fairness of the system, process, and outcome.

I have some recommendations for changes in Alaska:

  1. The Legislature should enact a law mandating that all ballots must be received by midnight on Election Day to be counted. None of this one week later stuff to count absentee and mail-in votes.  
  2. We must reinstate the requirement for witness signing of all mail-in and absentee ballots. To hell with a stupid court ruling. They are wrong when it comes to maintaining voting system with integrity. When you vote in person, verification that the person voting is the same person registered to vote is required. 
  3. Prohibit ballot harvesting from any third party. This idea that someone can go around and collect ballots is ludicrous. It allows for gross voter manipulation by opening the door that the person collecting the ballots could also be influencing the voter or worse, marking the ballot for them.
  4. Increase penalties for campaigning at polling places. 
  5. The State Division of Elections must pursue an aggressive voter registration verification process to remove from the voter registration list prior to every election those who have moved out of state; those who have moved between districts; those who have died; and those who are no longer eligible to vote.

Fair elections are crucial to the survival of a healthy democracy.  Our democratic republic is based on the principle of “one person, one vote.”  That means a legal and legitimate vote by each of us eligible to vote, not multiple votes by individuals; not votes cast by someone other than the actual voter; not votes cast based upon undue influence to a voter at the time the vote is cast; and it certainly means having all votes counted, not lost in ditches, misplaced, or discarded. 

If this election has taught us one thing, it is that our election system needs a major overhaul. Without it, we will only see more corrupt voting shenanigans by corrupt people, organizations, and governments who have contempt for the American people, and intend to continue manipulating elections to deprive us all of our constitutional rights for fair and honest elections.  

Why?  Because to them the ends justify the means.

Craig E. Campbell served on the Anchorage Assembly between 1986 and 1995 and later as Alaska’s Tenth Lieutenant Governor.  He was the previous Chief Executive Officer and President for Alaska Aerospace Corporation.  He retired from the Alaska National Guard as Lieutenant General (AKNG) and holds the concurrent retired Federal rank of Major General (USAF).

Dirty tricks: Municipality neuters recall application, says petition sponsors can’t hire signature gatherers?

BUT MUNI ATTORNEY THROWS OUT RECALL AGAINST ZALATEL

The applications for recall petitions for two sitting Assembly members have been answered by the municipal attorney and clerk of Anchorage, and the answer is mystifying to the petitioners.

Municipal Attorney Kate Vogel rewrote the application for the petition to recall Assembly Chair Felix Rivera. She removed language relating to misconduct in office and only allowed the petition application to say that Rivera had failed to perform his duties when he violated the mayor’s emergency orders against the number of people allowed inside the Assembly Chambers.

Vogel simply threw out the application for a petition to recall Assembly member Meg Zalatel.

Then the Municipal Clerk went further. She told the sponsors of the application that they may not hire a signature gatherer to collect the signatures needed to put Rivera on a ballot for recall. Instead, the Clerk stated that the petitioners would have to gather the signatures themselves.

Municipal Attorney Vogel’s response to the petitioners was to neuter the language of their complaint against Rivera, deny them the right to recall Zalatel.

“Recall Application 2020-04 only partially satisfies the statutory requirements for legal sufficiency. We recommend that Application 2020-04 be granted in part and denied in part, and a petition prepared only as to the allegation regarding “failure to perform prescribed duties,” Vogel wrote.

The original language of the petition was:

“Assembly chair Felix Rivera committed misconduct in office on August 11, 2020 by violating EO-15, an emergency order intended to protect the health and safety of Anchorage citizens, issued by the Mayor of Anchorage pursuant to AMC 3.80.060(H) by: 1) knowingly participating in an indoor gathering of more than 15 people (a meeting of the Anchorage Assembly) and 2) continuing to participate in an indoor gathering of more than 15 people at a meeting of the Anchorage Assembly after being specifically informed of the violation. Assembly chair Rivera failed to perform prescribed duties as chair of the Assembly by allowing the August 11 meeting he was presiding over to continue in violation of EO- 15 after the violation was brought to his attention by a point of order. Of all citizens in Anchorage the chair of the Anchorage Assembly should have been scrupulous in obeying the gathering limitation established by paragraph 4 of EO-15. His failure to do so needlessly endangered the lives of Anchorage citizens, encouraged the spread of COVID-19 throughout the community, and merits recall from office.”

She further noted that “…assembly meetings during [Emergency Order 15] EO-15 were closed to the public and had far fewer people in attendance than normal. The allegations do not explain why the applicants believe that participating in a too-large gathering and violating the emergency order constitutes ‘misconduct in office.'”

Vogel added, “Even ‘liberally construing’ the statutory language as the Alaska Supreme Court instructs, we do not see that the alleged conduct of merely ‘participating’ in a meeting with a number of persons exceeding what is allowed by law, constitutes ‘misconduct in office’ for the purposes of legal sufficiency of a recall application. We conclude that participating in a public meeting that allegedly violated the gathering restrictions of Emergency Order 15, without more, does not constitute the type of corrupt or abusive behavior that the Legislature encapsulated under ‘misconduct in office.'”

She continued, “For these reasons, we recommend denying as legally insufficient the portion of Application 2020-04 that seeks to recall Chair Rivera for misconduct in office.”

Instead, Vogel rewrote the application for a petition:

“Assembly chair Felix Rivera [COMMITTED MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE] on August 11, 2020 [BY VIOLATING] violated EO-15, an emergency order intended to protect the health and safety of Anchorage citizens, issued by the Mayor of Anchorage pursuant to AMC 3.80.060(H) by: 1) knowingly participating in an indoor gathering of more than 15 people (a meeting of the Anchorage Assembly) and 2) continuing to participate in an indoor gathering of more than 15 people at a meeting of the Anchorage Assembly after being specifically informed of the violation. Assembly chair Rivera failed to perform prescribed duties as chair of the Assembly by allowing the August 11 meeting he was presiding over to continue in violation of EO-15 after the violation was brought to his attention by a point of order. Of all citizens in Anchorage the chair of the Anchorage Assembly should have been scrupulous in obeying the gathering limitation established by paragraph 4 of EO-15. His failure to do so needlessly endangered the lives of Anchorage citizens, encouraged the spread of COVID-19 throughout the community, and merits recall from office.”

The Alaska Supreme Court has ruled that petitioners can allege anything, whether or not the grounds seem sufficient. That’s what the court decided on the petition to recall Gov. Mike Dunleavy last year.

In a memo to the lead sponsor of the petition, Municipal Clerk Barbara Jones wrote “Signatures may only be collected by petition sponsors. Current petition sponsors are yourself, Ms. Brophy, and 11 of the 12 people who signed the petition application. Signer Paula Ferguson’s signature could not be verified, so Paula Ferguson is not authorized to be a sponsor and collect signatures. Additional sponsors may be added at any time before the petition is filed by submitting the name of the sponsor to the clerk.”

Sponsor Russell Biggs says because of his work, he cannot gather signatures himself and he and his cosponsors had intended to hire a professional to finish the job.

 The petition must have signatures from enough voters to equal 25 percent of the number that voted in the last election for that office. The group is looking for signature gatherers to volunteer.

Biggs has asked the Clerk to clarify the terms she laid out for gathering signatures.

The last election for Rivera was in 2020. Some 11,000 voted in the Assembly election that Rivera recently won, which means the group will need 2,750 good signatures of voters to force a special recall election.

Gross campaign tells insiders, media: Don’t call this race yet

36

A memo to media from the campaign of Alan Gross for Senate:

To: Interested Parties
From: David Keith, Campaign Manager, Dr. Al Gross for Senate
Subject: Status of AK-SEN race: Outstanding Ballots
Date: 11/5/2020 10 A.M. AKST


The dynamics of the Alaska Senate race at this hour remain in a state of flux. As expected by everyone who has been watching the turnout here in the state, Sullivan is benefitting from an early lead, but with approximately 44.6 percent of the ballots not yet counted, his lead can—and we believe will—be overcome once every vote has been counted in the state.

Based on the numbers, we are urging everyone—in-state press as well as folks in the lower 48—to avoid hasty predictions or to make calls based on projections. Before anyone declares a winner, we owe it to Alaska’s voters to have their voices heard and ensure that every vote is counted. Here is what we know at this hour:

Why this race is so different than in the past:

The lopsided fundraising in this race—with Dr. Al Gross raising $19 million to Dan Sullivan’s $9 million—made this race competitive until the end. Public polling leading up to Election Day proves this:

  • Independent Alaska polling showed Dr. Al Gross leading Dan Sullivan 47-46.
  • Patinkin Research Strategies polling showed Dr. Al Gross leading Dan Sullivan 47-46.

Simply put: Too much of the vote that was cast remains uncounted to call the 2020 U.S. Senate race in Alaska.

Approximated as of 10 am AKST 11/5/2020

Total number of votes counted: 190,872

  • Election Day: 154,604
    • Early vote before Oct. 30: 36,268

What remains uncounted: 153,423

  • Mail-in ballots: 116,730 (and growing)
    • Early vote between Oct. 30 – Nov. 3: 16,963
    • Questioned Ballots (Estimation): 20,000

Estimated percentage of vote that remains uncounted: 44.6%

A question mark on this race should remain until at least Nov. 10 when at least 153,000 votes—44.6% percent of the votes cast—begin being counted and every Alaskan’s voice heard.

How far will red wave recede when rest of Alaskans’ ballots are counted?

A LOOK AT SOME HOUSE GAINS THAT COULD GO EITHER WAY

With 28 State House Republicans winning on Election Day, Alaska conservatives were cheered by an apparent retaking of the House. But how many of those seats will still be retained after all votes are counted?

Most of the remaining ballots will be counted on Nov. 10, and for most races, results will be definitive by Nov. 13. Overseas ballots are counted by Nov. 18.

Of the 40 House seats, a few are still in play:

District 4: Keith Kurber, the Republican challenger, is ahead of Democrat Rep. Grier Hopkins. If Hopkins gets 57 percent of the remaining votes to be counted, he can win. Hopkins won 65 percent of the early vote, until the Friday-Monday early vote. Anecdotally, a lot of conservatives cast their votes early over the weekend in Fairbanks.

District 5: Republican challenger Kevin McKinley could lose if Democrat Rep. Adam Wool gets 65% of remaining Fairbanks votes. Wool took 65% of early vote.

District 15: Republican David Nelson is ahead but Democrat Lyn Franks could win if she gets 59% of the remaining votes in Muldoon-East Anchorage. Nelson won 47% of the early vote. The remaining votes will be heavily military, so Nelson is fairly safe, as military members typically vote Republican.

District 16: Republican challenger Paul Bauer could lose if Democrat Rep. Ivy Spohnholz gets 55% of remaining votes. Spohnholz won 60% of early votes in the East Anchorage set.

District 21: Democrat Rep. Matt Claman will likely win re-election, over Republican challenger Lynette Largent in West Anchorage-Airport. Earlier, Largent was ahead but Claman has pulled ahead in the Election Day vote count, 50.42% to 49.31%, and is heavily favored in absentee ballots, due to ballot harvesting by statewide candidates Alan Gross and Alyse Galvin.

District 23: Kathy Henslee, the Republican challenger, would lose if the remaining votes break 61% for Democrat Rep. Chris Tuck. Tuck took 55 % of the early votes.

District 25: Republican Rep. Mel Gillis would have to get less than 38% of remaining votes. Calvin Schrage, the fake independent, would have to win 62% of the uncounted vote. Schrage took 58% of early votes already counted. Assuming that all remaining Republican votes go to Gillis and all remaining Democrat votes will go to Schrage, the most probable outcome is that Gillis will win by 100 votes. That would be historically accurate for the district.

District 27: Republican Rep. Lance Pruitt wins unless Democrat Liz Snyder wins 65% of remaining votes. Snyder took 52% of early votes.

District 31: Republican Rep. Sarah Vance wins unless fake independent Kelly Cooper wins 76% of remaining votes. There are no early votes in District 31.

District 35: Kenny Skaflestad, Republican, would lose if Rep. Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, the Democrat gets 52% of remaining votes. Only 15 early votes were cast in the district.

District 36: Republican challenger Leslie Becker can win over fake independent Rep. Daniel Ortiz if she wins 61% of remaining votes. No Early votes were cast in this Ketchikan-Wrangell-Metlakatla district.

Senate Seat H: Madeleine Gaiser would lose if 51% of remaining vote goes to Democrat Sen. Bill Wielechowski. She won just 38% of the early vote.

Just go away

ANCHORAGE DAILY PLANET

Pundits and political observers will begin dissecting the howzits and whatzits of the Alan Gross campaign debacle in a bid to explain the incredible hammering the bear killer took, at least in early vote counting.

For a guy whose campaign probably spent $20 million or so – when you add Outside groups such as the Lincoln Project that poured money into the effort to unseat Sen. Dan Sullivan – you have to wonder:

What in the world went wrong?

In the early going, with more than 120,000 ballot left to count, Gross was trailing 32.09 percent to 62.22 percent, or 61,362 to Sullivan’s 118,978. In a state that normally sees Democrats, and Gross is a Democrat, garner about 40 percent of the vote, give or take, that is a real shellacking.

What caused that? Was it his iffy bear tale? (And whatever did happen to the bruin’s claws?) His lousy song about the iffy bear tale? The mansion in California? The commercial fisherman, doctor, rich guy thing? The Pebble tapes thing? His videotaped declaration of love for all things Democrat? Was it that nobody had ever heard of him before? We have our own theory.

By election day, many Alaskans simply were sick of him, weary of mailboxes packed full of placards, sick of his nonstop radio, television and social media ads. Pick up your telephone and there he was. Go on the internet, there he was. Try to get a quiet moment to yourself, the telephone would ring, and there was somebody who could barely speak English wondering if you would vote for him.

We never have seen or endured a political onslaught like that and there is a limit to what people are willing to tolerate. He spent millions pushing the boundaries of obnoxiousness.

At some point, the screw-you response kicks in. We know folks who had never heard of Gross and had nothing against him, but who, by the time the election rolled around, were sticking pins in voodoo doll likenesses and researching ways to put a pox on him.

Pundits and researchers likely will find myriad reasons he showed so poorly in the opening election counts, but we think he and his simply overdid it. He was like the loud drunk at the party who refuses to sit down and give everybody a break.

We do not know the man and he may be a good guy, but if we never see or hear from him again, it will be a day too soon.

Massachusetts turns down ranked choice voting, but will Alaska do the same?

3

By SCOTT LEVESQUE

Massachusetts voters have rejected the adoption of rank choice voting.

With 99% of the vote accounted for, Question 2 lost by a margin of 55% to 45%, ending an 18-month campaign to transform the state’s election system. 

The measure had widespread support from most of the state’s top Democratic leaders, including U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey. And with a 3,000-to-1 fundraising advantage over the opposition, Question 2 had a clear opportunity for victory. 

The same group responsible for the 2016 rank choice voting measure passed in Maine had raised over $10 million for Question 2 in Massachusetts. 

If passed, Question 2 would have implemented rank choice voting for all state and federal elections in Massachusetts starting in 2022 – except for the presidential race. The measure performed well in Boston and surrounding democratic held suburbs, including winning a 3-1 majority in Cambridge and Somerville.

However, double-digit losses across the state, including Worcester and Springfield, typically Democratic strongholds, left Question 2 on life support and conservative voters eventually pulled the plug.

Proponents of rank choice voting are not ruling out another run in Massachusetts soon. 

Like Massachusetts, Alaskans were asked to implement ranked choice voting on Ballot Measure 2. This measure would completely overhaul the state’s election system by inserting rank choice voting, jungle primaries, and eliminating “Outside” or “dark” money, at least for state races, but not for federal races or ballot initiatives.

The campaign championing Ballot Measure 2 raised over $7 million — a 14-1 advantage over the opposition, with almost 99% of funds coming from Outside money.

As of Thursday, Ballot Measure 2 is behind in the voting 44% to 56%, but with nearly 134,000 absentee votes yet to be counted, there’s still a possible path to victory. It’s a result that is similar to what has occurred in Massachusetts.

And like Massachusetts, if Alaska votes down the measure, it could be the target of another attempt, by outside influences, to overthrow the state’s election system for a far less straightforward election model.

The “yes” side would need to get about 59 percent of the remaining uncounted votes in order to change the results.

Public broadcasting KDLG led with story favoring Al Gross on Election Day

On Election Day, the lead story on the public broadcasting station for Dillingham and surrounding areas was a promotion for candidate Al Gross.

Senate candidate Dr. Al Gross talks plans to support Bristol Bay economy if elected the headline still reads at KDLG, as of Thursday morning.

“Independent Dr. Al Gross talked to KDLG about how he plans to grow the economy of Bristol Bay by supporting fishermen and developing renewable energy resources,” the story continues.

“Why wouldn’t you vote for a guy like that, if you live in the area?” commented one KDLG listener to Must Read Alaska.

“Gross’ campaign reached out to KDLG to share how he plans to help residents in the region,” the report says.

KDLG is licensed and operates out of the Dillingham School District offices. It is a member station of NPR, APRN, PRI, and American Public Media and has a coverage area the size of the state of Ohio, according to the station.

What is Gross’ realistic path to victory over Sullivan? 70% of the uncounted vote

40

Alan Gross says he is sure he will win the Senate against Dan Sullivan. In a video statement on Wednesday, posted on Twitter, the Democrats’ candidate reassured his supporters that with 40 percent of the vote yet to be counted, he’s confident those votes are for him.

But are they?

Various media reports give differing totals for the number of votes yet to be counted. Some put the estimate at 120,000, others are assuming 150,000.

There are already 192,918 ballots already counted, and they went 119,000 to Sullivan, 61,362 to Gross. That means Sullivan has over 61 percent of the vote, for early voting up until the Thursday before Election Day, combined with all of the votes cast on Election Day itself, Nov. 3.

In the 2016 General Election, 321,271 total votes were cast. This includes all votes — early, absentee, and day-of votes.

So far this year, 173,712 votes have already been counted. If 2020 turnout is anything like 2016 turnout, that means about 147,600 remain, or 46 percent of the expected turnout.

Gross would be right, if he used this presumption, that over 40 percent of the vote is yet to be counted.

Gross also knows that those 147,600 ballots were aggressively scavenged by his field team from the Lower 48, flown up and housed in local hotels, from where they fanned across the state with smart tablets, knocking on doors and harvesting ballots from voters who are modeled as liberals.

To get across the finish line, Gross needs 57,638, presuming that Sullivan has all the votes he is ever going to get, and that Sullivan won’t get a single vote more in the the 147,600 outstanding ballots.

But that’s not how it will work, of course.

Let’s presume the 147,600 ballots split 50-50. In that scenario, Sullivan gets 193,400 votes, and Gross gets 135,162 votes, still far short of a win for Gross.

Now let’s presume that the 147,600 ballots break two-thirds for Gross. Now, Sullivan would have 168,200 votes, and Gross would have 159,762. Close, but no cigar. Gross still comes up about 8,438 votes short, or 6 percent shy of pulling even.

In order to win, Gross needs well over 70 percent of the remaining ballots, including all absentees and the votes of people who cast ballots from Friday through Monday before Election Day. It’s a big lift, but Gross thinks he has this in the bag.

Of the uncounted early and absentee votes, approximately 30,000 are from registered Republicans and 28,000 registered Democrats. If you assume that Democrats will vote for Gross, and Republicans for Sullivan, then Al Gross has to get 85 percent of undeclared and nonpartisans.

But what if there are only 120,000 remaining votes? The calculus is similar.

And what about the third person in the race, the Alaska Independence Party candidate? All indications are that John Wayne Howe is actually pulling votes from Gross, not Sullivan.

If by magic, Gross can go from his current 32% popularity to 70% of the vote, he can win this thing. Otherwise, he’s just spinning another tall tale for his Outside donors, while his workforce gets back on the plane headed south.

More states decriminalize pot, and Oregon goes for LSD, heroin, meth, cocaine

18

By SCOTT LEVESQUE

A nationwide push to temper drug laws saw big victories in several states this week.

Oregon voted to decriminalize small amounts of hard drugs, such as cocaine, heroin, LSD, and methamphetamines, becoming the first state to pass such legislation. Possession of these street drugs in small quantities is no longer necessarily punishable by jail time in Oregon.

Instead, the measure provides a loophole for drug users to avoid a trial and jail time by paying a $100 fine and agreeing to attend an addiction recovery program.

According to the American Addiction Centers, 70%-80% of people who enter addiction treatment programs drop out by 3-6 months. Less than 30% of patients complete an entire program.

Oregon also legalized psilocybin, a powerful psychedelic known as the magic mushroom, for anyone age 21 and older.

Those in favor of legalization of psychedelic mushrooms believe them to be an effective treatment for depression and anxiety. 

The measure uses funds from the marijuana sales tax to finance drug addiction treatments—an irony not lost on those who voted against the measure. 

Costs associated with drug treatment is substantial and a burden on taxpayers. In 2008, the federal and state governments spent over $15 billion on substance abuse services. That’s not including an additional $5 billion from private insurance.

Yet there is a growing movement to relax drug laws underway. 

In Washington D.C., voters on Tuesday approved a measure to decriminalize hallucinogenic mushrooms. The initiative directs the local police to shift enforcement against the use, distribution, and cultivation of these drugs to its lowest priorities. 

In New Jersey, Montana, South Dakota, and Arizona, voters approved measures to legalize marijuana for adults age 21 and older, bringing the total to 15 states that have legalized the plant.

Voters in Mississippi and South Dakota legalized medical marijuana during the General Election, bringing the total to 36 states that permit some form of legal distribution of weed.

In 2014, Alaska passed Measure 2, which legalized recreational marijuana use for adults age 21 and over. Touted as a significant revenue generator for the state, the initiative passed with 53.2% of the vote.

The state has collected $5 million in cannabis tax revenue in the current fiscal year, which started in July.

Public support for the legalization of marijuana is at an all-time high, according to Pew Research done in 2019. Some 67% of Americans favor legalization, in contrast to 1989, when only 16% favored legalization. 

With Oregon and Washington D.C. charting new territory by legalizing psychedelics, tax revenue benefits many appeal to voters in states with severe budget problems. 

If so, Alaska, which has chronic problems with government overspending, could see the legalization of psychedelics as an opportunity to generate revenue and close the deficit gap.

As Oregon and other states generate money from the taxation on the cultivation and distribution of psychedelics, will Alaskans see dollar signs, or will they see warning signs?