This article was originally published in “Seward’s Folly,” the author’s personal Substack, August 20, 2026
It would be easy for conservative Republicans to get discouraged with the results of Tuesday’s primary. The Democrats did well in the statewide races, and they are going to be using that success as a talking point right up until the general election.
In reality, this year’s primary election was remarkably similar to the last time we elected a new governor. In the 2018 primary, only about 20% of Alaskans voted, and the Dems did very well, but in the general election Alaska elected a Republican governor, U.S. Senator, and U.S. Representative. We need to look at this year’s jungle primary using that perspective to understand how the general election might turn out.
Governor’s Race
In the governor’s primary, the top two vote-getters were both Democrats. However, they might want to take a closer look at the numbers. Although the two Democrats received the most votes, nobody got enough to win in the general election. The low Republican vote counts for Wilson and Bronson were diluted by the 12 Republicans in the race, who split the vote.
Democrats won’t have that advantage in the General Election. There will only be four candidates running; right now, there are 2 from each party. The important numbers in this race are the total votes cast, broken down by party. The Democratic candidates received 41.69% of the vote, while the Republicans received 51.08%, which is enough to easily win the governor’s race. Republicans are getting used to the screwy RCV election system and have learned to rank the red. As long as the Republicans don’t attack each other for the next 76 days, one of the Republicans should win this race.
The wild card will be if one of the top four candidates drops out. That is currently being considered by both parties, and if it happens, the current fifth-place candidate in the primary would move onto the ballot. That person is former AG Treg Taylor.
Treg Taylor is a divisive candidate and very unpopular with some Republican groups. Both parties are aware of the advantage this would give the Democrats. If the Ds were smart, they would do whatever it took to get Taylor on the ballot to stir up conflict between the Republicans, perhaps even having one of the Democrat candidates strategically quit the race to do so. Taylor could be the disruptive force that would get a Democrat elected governor in this red state, similarly to Mary Peltola’s victory in the 2022 U.S. House election.
US Representative
Nick Begich handily led the primary election over his closest competitor by 16%. Coming in second was Bill Hill, a man from southwest Alaska. Hill is a retired schoolteacher whose policies align with the Democrats. While not an official Democrat by party affiliation, Hill will get stuck with the liberal label during the campaign and will not resonate with statewide voters. This race for U.S. Representative should be an easy victory for incumbent Nick Begich.
U.S. Senate
Democrat Mary Peltola did well on Tuesday, with a 5% lead in vote count over incumbent Senator Dan S Sullivan. However, she did not receive enough to win outright. Like the governor’s race, there were a very large number of candidates running for the US Senate, 16 in total. This diluted the votes for incumbent Dan Sullivan.
Twelve of those candidates have now been eliminated, and voters will have a clearer choice in November. If that race is as competitive as the primary, it will come down to an automatic ranked-choice runoff, the results of which are anybody’s guess. Peltola could win. This is the most competitive race for the Democrats in this year’s election.
As far as how all of these statewide races shake out in November, voters need to keep in mind that the last time we elected a new governor in 2018, the Republican candidates did better in all 2018 statewide races in the general election than they did in the primary. Should we see the same patterns this year, Alaska will elect a Republican governor and U.S. Representative. The U.S. Senate seat is a toss-up, but Dan Sullivan should pull out a victory.
However, this will only happen if conservative voters do not get discouraged by the news in the mainstream press about how the Democrats “won” the primary. Winning a primary election is similar to winning the preseason in the NFL. It doesn’t matter once the regular season starts, and for Alaska politicians, the regular season starts on November 3rd.
Eagle River–Chugiak: A Community Before the Boundary
The effort to establish a separate government for Eagle River and Chugiak is sometimes described simply as a movement to leave Anchorage. That description is understandable, but incomplete. The deeper history is one of local government realignment; the recurring American practice of reconsidering governmental boundaries when population, community identity, service systems and political institutions no longer fit together as they once did.
The Eagle River–Chugiak effort has never followed a straight line. It has emerged, receded and reappeared across more than five decades. Different generations have approached the question differently. Some emphasized independence. Others emphasized taxation, services, schools or political representation. The modern effort has increasingly emphasized something quieter and more durable: the proposition that governmental boundaries are instruments created to serve communities, not permanent lines to which communities must remain indefinitely subordinate.
A Community First
Long before Eagle River and Chugiak became parts of the Municipality of Anchorage, the area possessed its own geographic and civic identity.
The communities developed along the Glenn Highway corridor between the Anchorage Bowl and the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. Chugiak grew substantially through postwar homesteading, including settlement by former military personnel, while Eagle River developed into a residential and commercial center near Fort Richardson and Elmendorf Air Force Base. The area’s schools, churches, volunteer organizations, businesses, community councils and recreational institutions gradually created a recognizable community extending from Eagle River through Birchwood, Peters Creek, and Eklutna.
The relationship with Anchorage was always real. Many residents worked, shopped or conducted business in the Anchorage Bowl. Military families moved between the communities and the installations that would eventually become Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson. Yet economic connection did not erase local identity. Eagle River and Chugiak could be closely connected to Anchorage while remaining distinguishable from it.
That duality, regional interdependence accompanied by local distinction, would remain at the center of every later boundary debate.
The Greater Anchorage Area Borough
In 1964, the State of Alaska established the Greater Anchorage Area Borough as part of the early implementation of Alaska’s borough system. The new borough included not only the City of Anchorage but also Eagle River, Chugiak, and other communities extending well beyond the Anchorage Bowl.
For many Eagle River–Chugiak residents, the concern was not merely geographical distance. It was whether a single metropolitan government could adequately reflect communities with different development patterns, service expectations, and ideas about taxation and local control.
These concerns arose during a period when Alaska was still developing the meaning of borough government. Article X of the Alaska Constitution sought to provide “maximum local self-government with a minimum of local government units.” The balance was deliberate. Alaska wanted to avoid unnecessary layers of government while still permitting meaningful local control. The historical question for Eagle River–Chugiak became whether inclusion in a larger borough advanced that balance or placed the community inside a governmental structure that was becoming increasingly centered on the Anchorage Bowl.
The First Eagle River–Chugiak Borough
The first major effort reached its high point in 1974.
During that year, the Alaska Legislature enacted Chapter 145, Session Laws of Alaska 1974, authorizing Eagle River–Chugiak residents to vote on whether to form a second-class borough. An election was held on August 27, 1974, and the voters approved borough formation. The Eagle River–Chugiak Borough was officially incorporated on September 12, 1974.
For several months, the community operated on the understanding that it had achieved separate legal status. Residents and public officials began organizing a government, making administrative decisions, and preparing to exercise borough responsibilities.
The significance of this period should not be exaggerated, but neither should it be dismissed. Eagle River–Chugiak did not merely discuss self-government in the abstract. Its voters approved a borough, and a government was organized under what appeared at the time to be valid legislative authority.
The borough’s existence, however, rested upon a special act of the Legislature rather than the general incorporation and Local Boundary Commission process available under Alaska law.
Abrams v. State: A Procedural Defeat, Not a Rejection of the Community
In April 1975, the Alaska Supreme Court decided Abrams v. State. The Court held that Chapter 145 was unconstitutional because it was special or local legislation enacted where a general law and statewide process were available. The decision therefore invalidated the legislative mechanism used to create the borough.
This distinction is central to understanding the history.
The Court did not hold that Eagle River and Chugiak could never constitute a borough. It did not determine that the community lacked the population, resources, identity or capacity required for local government. It held that the Legislature could not create this particular borough through a special procedure that bypassed the generally applicable framework.
In other words, the first borough failed because of how it was created, not because the Alaska Constitution permanently prohibited Eagle River–Chugiak from pursuing borough government.
The Supreme Court later recognized in Jordan v. Reed that the borough had possessed apparent legal validity while it operated. Residents and officials had acted in good faith on the understanding that two separate political entities existed. The Court treated the borough as a de facto municipality for purposes of governmental actions taken during that period.
That subtle legal history matters. The 1974 borough was not a fantasy or merely an unsuccessful political slogan. It was a briefly functioning local government whose statutory foundation was later invalidated.
Eagle River–Chugiak had therefore achieved self-government once, but through a legal mechanism the Alaska Supreme Court concluded could not be used. The next chapter would ask whether the community could accomplish through Alaska’s general boundary process what the Legislature had attempted to accomplish by special law.
Today, August 21, 2026, Governor Mike Dunleavy announced that the Trump Administration has awarded more than $410 million to support the Alaska Marine Highway System with key resources targeted for rural Southeast Alaska. “The Alaska Marine Highway System is vital for Southeast Alaska. This investment will provide the resources to build on our successes for the past years to provide for decades of reliable service,” Gov. Dunleavy said.
The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities submitted six winning applications:
$161.2 million federal funding for AMHS operations support for ferry services across more than 20 communities, supporting vessel operations, crew, fuel, and maintenance consistent with the AMHS 2045 Long Range Plan.
$153.4 million federal funding for design and construction of a replacement of the M/V LeConte, improving reliability, accessibility, fuel efficiency, and long-term fleet flexibility.
$37.6 million federal funding for the Cascade Point Ferry Terminal, shortening the Juneau-Haines-Skagway sailing by roughly one-third and reducing operating costs.
$33.4 million federal funding for the Kake Ferry Terminal modernization, enabling the terminal to accommodate more of the AMHS fleet and larger vessels.
$20.6 million federal funding to expand the Saxman Seaport, improving capacity, freight movements, and connections among Ketchikan/Saxman, Metlakatla, and Prince of Wales Island.
$4 million federal funding for customer service and operations modernization, including implementing modern reservations and improving AMHS operating efficiency.
“Under President Trump and Secretary Duffy, the tens of thousands of Alaskans who depend on a safe and reliable ferry system will not be overlooked,” said U.S. Transportation Under Secretary for Policy Ryan McCormack. “From Juneau to the Aleutian Islands, we know residents rely on ferries to commute, move goods, and access healthcare. That’s why the Trump Administration is investing nearly half a billion dollars to bolster the Alaska Marine Highway System. We’re proud to work with Governor Dunleavy to deliver this massive win for Alaskan families.”
“For many of Alaska’s 230 communities that are not connected by the road system, marine transportation isn’t optional, it’s how people travel to meet their everyday needs,” said Sen. Dan Sullivan. “The $410 million in new federal funding that we’re announcing today represents a historic investment in Alaska’s ferry system—for terminal facilities, a replacement vessel, and operations. In the federal infrastructure law, I worked to secure new flexibility that allows federal funds to also support ferry operating costs, which is critically important to bolstering the Alaska Marine Highway system over the long-term. Today’s announcement is an exciting win for Alaska’s coastal communities and Alaskans’ transportation needs.”
“This federal investment of more than $410 million is a major victory for Alaska and will help realize the vision I had as a lead author of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Throughout the lengthy negotiations, I made it clear that our ferries are essential infrastructure and deserve inclusion in this generational investment,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski. “Growing up in Southeast Alaska, I know our waterways connect us to our neighbors. When we have a thriving ferry system, our coastal communities can thrive. That is why the Alaska Marine Highway System has remained a priority of mine throughout my career, and why I continue to push our state and federal partners to ensure that our AMHS meets Alaskans’ needs. With this funding, we are able to deliver on the promise to recapitalize our fleet so that AMHS remains a reliable, sustainable service that Alaskans can count on for decades to come.”
“Reliable ferry service is fundamental to the economic vitality and quality of life for residents throughout Southeast and coastal Alaska,” said Congressman Begich. “These investments in Alaska’s Marine Highway will help address longstanding infrastructure and operational needs while improving the reliability of ferry service for Alaskans. From replacing aging vessels to improving terminals and strengthening day-to-day operations, these projects represent meaningful investments in the long-term health of the Marine Highway system.”
Press release provided by the Office of the Governor.
Governor Mike Dunleavy announced on August 20, 2026, that the State of Alaska is now accepting applications from nonprofit organizations seeking approval as K–12 Scholarship Granting Organizations under the new federal Education Freedom Tax Credit.
President Donald J. Trump established the Education Freedom Tax Credit through the Working Families Tax Cuts Act. Beginning January 1, 2027, individual taxpayers may contribute to an approved K–12 Scholarship Granting Organization, or SGO, and receive a dollar-for-dollar federal income-tax credit of up to $1,700 each year.
The SGO then awards scholarships to eligible K–12 Alaska students. A recent analysis estimates that 95% of Alaska’s K–12 students will be eligible. Depending on the student and the SGO, those scholarships may help cover tuition, tutoring, books, classroom supplies, career and technical education expenses, services for students with disabilities, and other qualified K–12 education expenses. The program does not discriminate by educational model and may be used to support students in neighborhood public schools, charter schools, home schools, or private or religious schools.
By incentivizing voluntary charitable donations, the program will provide additional support for K–12 education outside of state and federal appropriations.
“This is a tremendous opportunity for Alaska’s K–12 students, no matter where they go to school or how they learn,” said Governor Mike Dunleavy. “This program will bring new resources into education and give students better access to tutoring, books, specialized services, tuition assistance, and other opportunities. It also gives taxpayers in Alaska and across the country a powerful way to invest directly in Alaska’s children—and receive a dollar-for-dollar federal income-tax credit for doing so. A win for students, families, schools, and taxpayers.”
“Alaska’s schools and families know where the needs are,” said Department of Education and Early Development Commissioner Deena Bishop. “This program gives people a new way to meet them. It can help a K–12 student catch up, move ahead, learn a trade, or receive support tailored to a disability. It can help a public school offer something that otherwise might remain beyond reach. It gives parents more tools to help their own children learn. We want Alaska organizations thinking now about the students they can serve and the partnerships they can build.”
K–12 Scholarship Granting Organizations may take different forms. Some will partner with particular schools or groups of schools, helping their students apply for scholarships and bringing new scholarship dollars into those school communities. Others may work with education providers, serve a particular region or educational need, or accept applications from eligible K–12 students across Alaska regardless of where they attend school or receive their education. Federal law requires each SGO to award scholarships to at least ten students who do not all attend the same school.
SGOs are nonprofit organizations and must devote at least 90% of their income to scholarships for eligible K–12 students. Although an individual taxpayer may claim a federal credit of up to $1,700, SGOs may pool contributions from many taxpayers. Individual scholarship awards may therefore be substantially greater than $1,700, depending on the SGO’s resources and scholarship program.
Governor Dunleavy has already elected for Alaska to participate in the federal program so that Alaska families may benefit from this opportunity. The next step is identifying the SGOs to which taxpayers in Alaska and across the country may make qualifying contributions to support Alaska K–12 students.
Nonprofit organizations seeking inclusion on Alaska’s list of approved K–12 Scholarship Granting Organizations may apply by submitting:
1. A letter of interest; and
2. A copy of the organization’s IRS 501(c)(3) determination letter.
The letter of interest must be signed by an authorized representative and attest that the organization meets, and will continue to meet, all applicable federal requirements for Scholarship Granting Organizations under Section 25F of the Internal Revenue Code and any implementing federal regulations or guidance.
Applications will be evaluated on a rolling basis. The State expects to approve its first group of K–12 SGOs by September 30, 2026, consistent with forthcoming regulations from the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service.
Once approved, an SGO may rely on the State’s approval and begin organizing its K–12 scholarship program, building partnerships with Alaska schools and education providers, and preparing to raise qualifying contributions beginning January 1, 2027, subject to its continuing compliance with applicable federal requirements.
Press release provided by the Office of the Governor.
We need a strategy that elects a conservative governor, not an idealistic fantasy that will give us another Murkowski-type conservative or worse-yet a Democrat. The only way the “all Republicans drop out” consolidation strategy actually works is if every single Republican candidate actually drops out, which will not happen.
Under Alaska rules, candidates can withdraw until August 31. If one of the current top four exits, the next-highest finisher from the primary gets elevated straight onto the November ballot. If Dave Bronson drops, that immediately moves someone like Treg Taylor or Click Bishop into the general-election field. Click Bishop may refuse to drop. In that case you still have a multi-Republican field that splits first-choice conservative support, especially with a soft R and hard R. You either get a Democrat with exhausted ballots, or you get Click Bishop as Governor.
Why “Rank Just 1” Advice Fails
Ballots that fail to rank a second viable conservative become exhausted (called bullet voters—people who only pick one candidate) and the race is handed to a Democrat or Soft R like Bishop.
That is exactly what happened in the 2022 House special election. Roughly 11,290 Begich first-choice ballots exhausted. Mary Peltola won 51.5–48.5 even though combined Republican first-round support was near 60 percent.
Re-read that: 11,000 Begich voters not ranking Sarah Palin let a Democrat win the U.S. House seat for the first time in 50 years. 100% fact.
One of the biggest problems with Ranked-Choice Voting in Alaska is that the Party and far too many Alaskans still treat RCV advice as one-size-fits-all. Strategy has to be recalibrated after every Jungle/Open Primary once we know the actual top-four makeup. Advice that made sense in 2024 (where Dahlstrom dropped out) does not automatically apply in 2026. The ranking order and the “rank-the-pair” (or rank-the-trio) message change with whatever field actually reaches November.
The Mechanics Never Change
Here’s what does not change:
First-choice tallies
Sequential elimination of the lowest candidate
Transfer of secondary preferences
Exhaustion of any ballot that no longer ranks a continuing candidate (AS 15.15.350)
When conservative first-choice support is majority-sized but fragmented, failure to mark downstream rankings shrinks the active pool and manufactures a “majority” for the remaining Democrat or Soft R.
The practical safeguard is still “rank the pair.” Rank both (or all) viable conservative finalists 1 and 2 so your ballot stays alive and transfers cleanly. Keep real conservatives on the ballot—don’t hand Soft Republicans like Click Bishop an opening. Assume Bronson drops out: Treg Taylor moves up. If Treg Taylor also drops, Click Bishop advances. But if Click Bishop refuses to leave the race, the exact scenario everyone fears plays out in the worst possible way, uncontrolled. Ballot exhaustion then hands the keys to a Soft R like Bishop, or worse, delivers the Governor’s seat to a Democrat. We already saw this in 2022. Nearly 60% of Alaskan voters chose a Republican for U.S. Congress, yet Mary Peltola won because Republican ballots were exhausted and the combined Republican vote was split.
Additional 2022 Lessons: Administrative Failures, Exhausted Ballots, and Voter Confusion
The 2022 cycle exposed more structural weaknesses that prove why precise, election-specific ranking education is non-negotiable for 2026.
Al Gross Ballot Controversy
The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the Division of Elections failed to strictly follow election-law deadlines and regulations when Dr. Al Gross tried to withdraw from the U.S. House race. The court said his name should have legally remained on the special general election ballot. Gross finished third in the special primary and withdrew after the deadline. The Division removed him anyway and refused to elevate fifth-place Tara Sweeney. The resulting three-candidate field changed the ranking dynamics and transfer patterns that produced the Democratic victory.
Exhausted and Discarded Ballots
RCV produced a significant volume of exhausted, overvoted, or blank non-transferable ballots:
U.S. Senate: 4.9% (12,933) thrown out
U.S. House: 6.4% (17,063) thrown out
Those discarded ballots shrank the active pool in the final rounds and amplified every first-choice split.
Voter Sentiment and Turnout
These problems coincided with the lowest voter turnout in Alaska history, approximately 44% of registered voters. Senator Dan Sullivan said the vast majority of constituents he spoke with found the new system confusing.
Administrative mistakes, high exhaustion rates, and widespread confusion prove that generic “rank the red” messaging is not enough. Voters need concrete, race-specific guidance once the final field is locked.
Summary of Ranked-Choice Voting Concerns
Nationwide experience with RCV shows the same operational failures, fairness problems, and high-level political skepticism we see in Alaska.
Operational Failures and Exhausted Ballots
In New York City’s first ranked-choice primary (2021 Democratic mayoral), nearly 15% (140,202 out of over 942,000) of certified ballots became exhausted or inactive because voters did not rank either of the top two finalists, Eric Adams or Kathryn Garcia. In the San Francisco Bay Area, Alameda County had to re-tally ranked-choice races after a programming error announced the wrong winner in an Oakland school-board contest. The error flipped the result and triggered calls for broader recounts.
“Vote-Trashing” and Fairness Criticisms
Hundreds of thousands of ballots have been discarded in ranked-choice races in NYC, Maine, Alaska, and San Francisco—what critics correctly call “vote-trashing.” The system is flawed because candidates who lead on first-choice votes are sometimes ultimately defeated (Kelly Tshibaka, Sarah Palin, Nick Begich). That raises legitimate questions about fairness, reliability, and accuracy.
Political Opposition
California Governor Gavin Newsom and former Governor Jerry Brown both criticized the system’s complexity, saying it confuses voters and deprives them of genuinely informed choices. Newsom vetoed legislation that would have expanded RCV for exactly those reasons. Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak warned that rushing constitutional changes to implement ranked-choice voting would only increase voter confusion and exclusion.
These patterns across the country reinforce one hard fact: Alaska’s RCV rules reward only the voters who fully understand and execute multi-candidate rankings tailored to the specific post-primary field.
Effective Outreach Strategies to Educate Voters
The post-primary field is still fluid. Administrative irregularities have already happened. Generic slogans (“RANK THE RED” or “BULLET VOTING”) fail when exhaustion and confusion are this high.
The highest-impact tactics are localized, concrete, and timed to the final ballot. These strategies are taken directly from Australia, which has used RCV for over 100 years:
1. Immediate post-certification “ballot simulation” kits. Once the final four (or elevated next candidate) are locked after the August 31 drop deadline, produce and widely distribute simple, race-specific sample ballots showing the exact ranking order for the two (or three) viable conservatives. Put them in every Republican district office, church bulletin, union hall, and gun-club newsletter. Pair each sample with one clear sentence that references the 2022 exhaustion numbers, the Gross ruling, and the national pattern of discarded ballots: “If your first choice is eliminated, or if a candidate is improperly removed, this ranking keeps your vote in the conservative column instead of exhausting it.”
2. Short-form video series that models the actual ballot and references past failures. Produce 15–30-second clips filmed on a real or mock November ballot that walk through every possible elimination path for the final field. Briefly note the Gross administrative error, the 2022 exhaustion percentages, and the documented problems in New York City, the Bay Area, Maine, and San Francisco. Release them on Facebook, YouTube, and local talk-radio apps the moment the top four stabilize. Caption every clip with the non-negotiable rule: “The only safe strategy is ranking every viable conservative. Leaving the second slot blank is a gift to the Democrat.”
3. Candidate and surrogate coordination must openly acknowledge contingencies and past failures. Public statements from Wilson, Bronson, and any other elevated candidate should explicitly urge supporters to rank the other as second, Wilson saying “Rank me first and put Bronson second,” and Bronson doing the reverse, thereby putting victory ahead of ego. Joint appearances and shared digital ads that visibly demonstrate these mutual second-choice rankings will lower the trust barrier that currently stops many voters from marking downstream preferences.
4. Trusted non-candidate messengers in high-turnout conservative networks. Equip pastors, hunting-club leaders, PFD-advocacy groups, and small-business associations with the same race-specific ranking cards and a two-minute talking point that ties ballot longevity directly to Permanent Fund Dividend protection, energy costs, and crime, while noting that 2022’s confusion and discarded ballots coincided with historically low turnout and that similar “vote-trashing” has occurred nationwide. These messengers are more credible than party apparatus when voters are skeptical of one-size advice.
Because the candidate makeup can still shift until August 31, lock the precise ranking recommendations only after that date and then execute the above tactics at maximum intensity through early voting and Election Day.
The mathematics of RCV, the risk of administrative error, the documented exhaustion rates, the record of voter confusion, and the nationwide pattern of discarded ballots and operational failures do not change. Only the names on the ballot do.
Not to mention the nearly $30 million the RCV lobby has spent to get and defend RCV in Alaska—the circus continues.
Educating voters to keep their ballots alive for every viable conservative is not a generic slogan. It is the only strategy that converts a first-round conservative majority into a November victory. If you select only one candidate you could very likely give the election to a Democrat.
Please don’t exhaust your ballot. Don’t throw away your vote. Rank all the conservative candidates.
Phil Izon has been a leading grassroots opponent of ranked-choice voting since Alaska’s 2022 elections, authoring and driving the 2024 repeal petition. He has briefed legislators and supported anti-RCV campaigns in multiple states, contributing to rejections or bans in Idaho, Oregon, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado and others.
The federal investigation into Petersburg’s Dan J. Sullivan has advanced, with a federal grand jury issuing subpoenas last week to witnesses linked to his U.S. Senate campaign, according to an exclusive report from NBC News.
A law enforcement official told NBC that the subpoenas seek information connected to the candidacy of the retired Petersburg teacher, who shares a name with incumbent Sen. Dan S. Sullivan (R-Alaska). Investigators are examining whether Dan J. Sullivan’s entry into the race was part of a conspiracy to confuse voters and divert support from the incumbent. This marks a new phase in a probe involving the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Alaska looking at possible wire fraud or a conspiracy to deprive Alaskans of a free and fair election process.
Dan J. Sullivan, a retired teacher from Petersburg, filed to run as a Republican in late May, just before the candidate deadline. The Alaska Division of Elections, under Director Carol Beecher, removed him from the ballot on June 15 after determining his candidacy was not filed in good faith and appeared intended to confuse voters—citing his recent party registration change, similarities to the incumbent’s campaign materials, and other factors. Anchorage Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews ordered him restored to the ballot on June 26, ruling that the Division lacked legal authority to impose a “good-faith” requirement not found in the U.S. Constitution, Alaska law, or its own regulations. The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed that decision on June 29, just hours before ballots were set to be printed, allowing him to appear on the August 18 primary ballot (listed as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.).
Federal grand juries in the District of Alaska consist of 16 to 23 ordinary citizens randomly selected from the community. These private citizens, not Department of Justice employees, hear evidence presented by prosecutors behind closed doors under the strict secrecy rules of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). Their role is investigative: they decide whether probable cause exists to believe a crime occurred and may compel the production of documents or testimony through subpoenas. A simple majority is sufficient to approve a subpoena or, later, return an indictment. No judge is present during the presentation of evidence, and the target of the investigation generally has no right to appear or offer a defense at this stage. The identities of the specific grand jurors handling this matter remain confidential and are not publicly available; participants in the process are prohibited from disclosing what occurs inside the grand jury room.
This development follows earlier reporting, including Must Read Alaska’s July 1 coverage of a Wall Street Journal opinion piece by Michael Fragoso and Sean Cooksey. That piece argued that Dan J. Sullivan—sometimes called “Decoy Dan”—could face federal charges for conspiracy against rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241 if evidence showed coordinated efforts to place a same-name candidate on the ballot with the intent to deceive voters who support the incumbent. Dan J. Sullivan has denied any intent to confuse voters.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Alaska has not publicly confirmed or denied the existence of the subpoenas or the broader probe. Dan J. Sullivan’s campaign has previously declined comment on related reports. An investigation does not automatically lead to charges, and any further developments remain protected by grand jury secrecy.
In the August 18 primary, “Decoy” Dan J. Sullivan placed third, receiving a mere 2.4% of the votes. He will advance to the general election ballot alongside Democrat Mary Peltola, who received 48% of the primary votes, and the incumbent Senator Dan S. Sullivan, who placed second with 42.8%.
At around 3:00 PM on the day of the 2026 primary election, August 18, a woman pointed a gun out of a third-story apartment window at officers on the ground and at a school across the street which was being used as a polling place. The woman was shot in the upper body by an officer on the ground and pronounced dead on the scene.
Officers responded to a call from The Adelaide, which currently serves homeless individuals meeting low-income limits, at about 1:34 PM. The Adelaide is located on E. 9th Ave. across from Denali Montessori Elementary. The caller said that an intoxicated and suicidal woman was inside the building and had pointed a gun at two staff members of The Adelaide. Police employed various deescalation tactics through their mobile intervention team and crisis negotiators.
Police Chief Sean Case stated, “They were able to establish some contact throughout that hour and 3 minutes, although none of the contact was meaningful. They used loudspeakers, attempted phone contact, and were able to get just short spurts of contact with the female inside. We had on-duty SWAT members immediately respond with special equipment that they have available to them.”
Police also used a drone to monitor the front door of the woman’s apartment, evacuated the apartment complex, and notified the school across the street of the situation. The woman was told she was under arrest for two felonies of Fear Assault with a Gun. The woman was then seen pointing a gun out of a window at officers on the ground and Denali Montessori Elementary across the street. Then, an officer fatally shot the woman in the upper body.
“We had the right personnel, we had the right equipment, we had containment, we had communication, evacuation— like so many times that we’ve had calls like this in the past that have ended in a safe resolution and taking the individual into custody,” stated Chief Case. “Sometimes you just can’t control everything… sometimes we just can’t control the behavior of other people. And in this case, we had a suicidal, intoxicated individual that made a decision that put the public at risk.”
Per policy, the name of the involved officer will be released in 72 hours. This is the 7th Officer Involved Shooting of 2026.
The state’s Office of Special Prosecutions (OSP) will review the officer’s use of force and determine whether it was justified. Once that has been completed, APD Internal Affairs will review the officer’s actions to confirm whether there was any violation of policy. As per APD practice, the officer will be placed on administrative leave. Once OSP has completed their investigation, their findings will be available for the public to review.
On August 19, Alaska DOT&PF announced it is working under an emergency contract to repair the Skagway Ferry Terminal, which is closed until the repairs are completed. Repairs include replacing six anchor chains, stabilizing the terminal float, and repairing the damaged concrete abutment.
Alaska DOT&PF had closed the Skagway Ferry Terminal after cracks were identified in the concrete abutment supporting the terminal’s vehicle transfer bridge and passenger walkway. Crews will remove the vehicle transfer bridge and passenger walkway to provide the access needed to complete repairs to both the float and the concrete abutment.
There have been no injuries, vessel contacts, or environmental releases associated with the incident, which was first reported on August 13.
“We now have a clear path forward and are moving aggressively to put the contractors, equipment, and materials in place,” said Marine Highway Director Craig Tornga. “Our goal is to restore service as quickly as possible, but the terminal will not reopen until the float is stable, the abutment is repaired, and our engineers determine the facility is safe.”
A reopening date has not been established. Once the detailed repair plan and construction sequence are finalized, DOT&PF will provide schedule and repair updates at FerryAlaska.com.
DOT&PF says, “The department recognizes the importance of upcoming community events, including the Klondike Road Relay scheduled for September 11. DOT&PF is advancing the work with these important community needs in mind.” They will be working closely with event organizers and private passenger ferry operators to provide alternative transportation during the terminal closure.
The Skagway terminal office remains open to answer questions and assist passengers with reservations, but vehicle and passenger ferry operations at the terminal remain suspended. Information about affected sailings, schedule adjustments, and repair progress is available at FerryAlaska.com.
Passengers should visit FerryAlaska.com or call 1.800.642.0066 for current sailing and reservation information.
This article was originally published in the author’s “Seward’s Folly,” the author’s personal Substack, August 17, 2026.
There is something fishy going on with the consent decree that Representative Louise Stutes signed with the Alaska Public Offices Commission. After admitting to numerous campaign finance violations, she now appears to be trying to conceal information she was required to disclose. Even worse, it looks like the APOC is helping her do so. There are two issues with this mess that the voters should be concerned about.
The first concern is the appearance of APOC bias in favor of Stutes. In Finding Number 2 of the consent decree, Stutes agreed to reveal the names of anonymous donors who contributed to her 2022 reelection campaign, and to do so within ten days. The full APOC commission reviewed and approved the consent decree in a hearing on August 3rd, meaning Stutes should have had until August 13th to turn over the donors’ names. However, in what appears to be an intentional move to help Stutes, APOC staff did not release the consent decree approval order on August 3rd, but sat on it for one additional unexplained week. They only released the final order on August 11th, which started the clock on Stutes’ ten-day time period.
The result of this suspicious extra week is that Stutes will not have to reveal the names of her mystery donors until after the primary election. This gives the appearance that the APOC intentionally slow-walked the consent decree to hide the information from the voters to avoid damaging Stutes’ election chances.
The second important issue in this mess is the puzzling reason why Stutes hid the identity of donors in the first place. Back in 2022, there were no limits on how much money could be donated to a legislator’s reelection campaign. Anyone could legally contribute any amount, and since the amount of money donated was a relatively small total of only $4,559.57 from five donors, the amount is not large enough to raise any warning flags. Perhaps the reason the donors are anonymous is not the amount; it is because their identities might turn off Republican voters.
One clue to that theory is that the anonymous contributions were made using a liberal online pass-through payment processor called Democracy Engine LLC. Its founder and CEO is Jonathan Zucer, a former ActBlue executive and DNC finance operations director. Importantly, unlike a PAC, this organization enables anonymous donations, primarily to left-of-center political candidates. Whoever used Democracy Engine LLC to funnel money to Stutes was probably from the political left, and she wanted that fact to remain hidden.
For example, since Stutes has caucused with the Democrats in the legislature for many years, the Alaska Democratic Party may have wanted to support Louise Stutes’ reelection campaign. If the Democratic Party donated to Stutes through the Democracy Engine LLC, their identity would be kept anonymous. Using this contribution technique is against APOC regulations, and when Stutes was caught doing so, the consent decree required her to disclose who the donors were, but she has not yet done so.
A second and more concerning possibility is that the donations were a quid pro quo from individuals seeking Stutes’ support on legislation. This could be an ethical violation of Alaska Statutes Sec. 39.52.120 or 39.52.130. We cannot confirm if that happened unless we can compare the names of the donors to legislation that Stutes sponsored in 2022. To be clear, I am not alleging that Stutes did anything illegal or unethical, but nobody can know for sure because Stutes has kept that donor information hidden.
The APOC’s mandate is to require transparency and disclosure from political candidates. In this case, they are doing just the opposite, helping Representative Stutes hide information the voters should have.
Since there are potential ethical violations involved, some people might wonder whether the Alaska House Ethics Committee should review Stutes’ actions. In reality, there is zero chance the Ethics Committee will act. The Democrat led majority in the legislature would never allow an investigation of a prominent member of their own caucus for ethics violations; they save that tactic for use against Republicans they don’t like.
If the APOC is dragging their feet and the House Legislative Ethics will not act, that leaves it up to the voters in District C, who still have one option left to them. They have a choice in the general election. They can vote for Louise Stutes, who has admitted to committing multiple campaign finance violations and wants to hide the identities of her mystery donors from the voters, or they can choose another candidate in the race. I do not believe the voters will pick Stutes, who has such difficulty telling the truth.
Greg Sarber is a lifelong Alaskan. He is a petroleum engineer who spent his career working on Alaska’s North Slope. Now retired, he lives with his family in Homer, Alaska. Greg formerly served as a board member of Alaska Gold Communications, Inc., the publisher of Must Read Alaska.
