In a significant victory for public health, the State of Alaska has finalized a $7.8 million settlement with vaping giants Juul Labs and Altria Group, accusing them of aggressively marketing high-nicotine products to young people. The agreement, announced on December 9, 2025, concludes five years of litigation and ranks among the nation’s highest per-capita recoveries for such cases. The funds will bolster prevention programs aimed at curbing youth nicotine addiction, addressing a crisis that has plagued Alaskan teens.
The lawsuit, filed in 2020, alleged that Juul and Altria designed sleek, flavored devices resembling USB drives, which appealed directly to adolescents while delivering nicotine doses far exceeding traditional cigarettes. This marketing strategy reversed decades of progress in reducing youth tobacco use, prompting a statewide epidemic. According to state officials, Juul’s tactics included social media influencers and underage sales promotions, leading to a spike in vaping rates among high school students.
Alaska Attorney General Stephen Cox highlighted the effort’s payoff, noting the settlement imposes strict court-enforceable restrictions on the companies’ operations in the state. The payout includes $5.8 million from Juul over five years and $2 million from Altria, settled last year. After legal fees, the net amount will flow to the Department of Health (DOH) for initiatives like the “Not Buying It” campaign, peer-to-peer education, and community partnerships.
DOH Commissioner Heidi Hedberg stressed the settlement’s role in safeguarding future generations. “This settlement allows us to strengthen programs that protect Alaska’s youth from nicotine addiction,” Hedberg said. “We will continue investing in prevention, education, and community partnerships that support healthier futures for young Alaskans.”
Progress is evident: The Alaska Youth Risk Behavior Survey shows high school e-cigarette use dropped from 26% in 2019 to 17% in 2023. Yet, challenges persist, with 38% of teens having tried vaping. The funds will target schools, online platforms, and local organizations to counter ongoing risks.
This resolution underscores Alaska’s commitment to youth health, joining a national wave of accountability against Big Tobacco’s modern iterations. Officials urge parents and educators to visit the DOH website for resources on tobacco prevention.
The Christmas tree’s roots trace back to ancient pagan practices, where evergreens symbolized renewal amid winter’s darkness. The Christmas tree was later Christianized by figures like St. Boniface in the eighth century. In Western culture, it evolved from medieval “Paradise Trees” adorned with apples and wafers — representing original sin and redemption — to the candlelit firs popularized in 18th-century Germany and spread globally. Symbolically, the evergreen stands for eternal life and peace, its upward tip pointing to heaven, while twinkling lights evoke Jesus as the “true light” illuminating the world, as noted in biblical references like John 1:14. This fusion of pagan vitality and Christian hope has made it a centerpiece of holiday celebrations, fostering family unity and joy.
In 2024, Washington, D.C received a towering 75-foot spruce from Alaska’s Tongass National Forest that stood as the U.S. Capitol Christmas Tree, embodying the enduring significance of this holiday icon in Western culture. Harvested from the world’s largest remaining temperate rainforest, this “People’s Tree” — nicknamed Spruce Wayne — highlights the uniqueness of Alaskan evergreens, thriving in a vast 16.8-million-acre ecosystem rich in Tlingit indigenous heritage and diverse wildlife. It journeyed 4,000 miles by sea and truck, stopping at communities to share stories of the Last Frontier’s majestic landscapes and cultural traditions.
For families, especially in Alaska, the tradition offers hands-on engagement. Residents can harvest one tree under 15 feet per household on unrestricted state lands, such as in the Mat-Su Valley or Kenai Peninsula, provided they confirm ownership and follow low-stump cutting guidelines to protect forests. “Finding a Christmas tree on State land is a great way for families to enjoy time outdoors,” said Stephen Nickel, Mat-Su and Southwest Area Forester, emphasizing preparation for safe winter travel with tools like shovels and tire chains. Once home, a fresh base cut and ample water keep the tree vibrant, turning a simple outing into a cherished ritual that connects generations to nature and cultural heritage.
Read more on the Division of Forestry and Fire Protections Press Release:
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has sounded the alarm on a surge in sophisticated scams where fraudsters pose as law enforcement or government officials, preying on unsuspecting residents with threats of arrest for fabricated offenses like missed jury duty or court dates. This impersonation tactic, often amplified by AI-generated voices and spoofed caller IDs, has emerged as one of the newest and most harmful scams, extorting victims through urgent demands for payment via cryptocurrency ATMs, prepaid cards, or wire transfers.
Nationwide, the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) recorded 17,367 complaints related to government impersonation scams in 2024, resulting in over $405 million in losses. In 2024, Alaskans suffered losses exceeding $1.3 million, contributing to the state’s total of 6,770 internet crime complaints and $26 million in overall damages last year.
The Alaska Department of Public Safety (DPS) has echoed the FBI’s concerns, issuing alerts about similar “missed jury duty” schemes where scammers impersonate state troopers and demand cryptocurrency payments. These frauds isolate victims by instructing them not to consult family or banks, leading to devastating financial and emotional impacts. Families have reported losing life savings, facing bankruptcy, and enduring severe stress, with some victims feeling ashamed and reluctant to seek help, exacerbating isolation and mental health strains.
“Be advised, the FBI and legitimate law enforcement authorities will not call members of the public to demand payment or threaten arrest,” stated the FBI in its warning, urging Alaskans to “take a beat” and verify claims independently.
Authorities advise hanging up on suspicious calls, reporting incidents to local police, and filing complaints at www.ic3.gov. With scams evolving rapidly, education and vigilance remain key to protecting vulnerable communities.
Today, Senator Dan Sullivan celebrates the U.S. Small Business Administration’s (SBA) reform of the Business Development program provided in SBA policy 8(a). Sen. Sullivan has been fighting for this reform since October 2020.
SBA’s Business Development program is a “federal contracting and training program for experienced small business owners who are socially and economically disadvantaged.” The program benefits include sole-source contracts, one-on-one business development assistance, mentorship, networking, and free training from SBA’s Empower to Grow program.
Under the old policy, small businesses were required to have a “bona fide place of business,” meaning a staffed physical location. According to Sen. Sullivan: “Throughout my time in the Senate, I have been a strong supporter of the SBA 8(a) Program, which has provided countless opportunities for Alaskans and Alaska businesses. Many 8(a) firms are proven federal contractors that perform mission-critical work for the federal government, particularly for the Department of Defense, with efficiency and speed. However, for years, the ‘bona fide office’ requirement worked directly against these objectives… [and] imposed an unworkable and unnecessary barrier to entry.”
Chugach President Katherine Carlton applauded Sullivan’s efforts: “This change removes an onerous, one-of-a-kind restriction on 8(a) construction firms and will help Native and other 8(a) contractors compete, hire locally, and deliver for federal customers.”
The reform enables more Alaskan small businesses to enter the federal marketplace. The top industries that use the 8(a) program are construction, engineering, information technology, maintenance and operations, logistics and transportation, healthcare, and environmental services.
Alaska’s Constitution promises equal protection, maximum local self-government, and uniform taxation within units of government. Yet Alaska’s local governance framework—unique in the United States—creates an inherent disparity between organized boroughs, which must assess property at “full and true value” and fund schools, public safety, planning, roads, and local services, and the Unorganized Borough, which pays no local taxes, conducts no property assessments, and depends entirely on State general funds for many of the same services.
For decades, this imbalance was tolerated as a product of geographic remoteness and historical development. However, since 2016, the Legislature’s repeated reduction of Permanent Fund Dividends (PFDs) has introduced a new constitutional tension:
PFD reductions function as a statewide tax, borne equally by residents of both organized and unorganized areas, while only residents of organized boroughs also bear local property taxes.
This creates a two-tiered burden that the framers of Article X never anticipated.
Constitutional Framework: Equal Protection and Local Governance
Article I, Section 1: The Equal Protection Clause
Alaska’s equal protection clause is broader than the federal version. It prohibits arbitrary disparities in how similarly situated persons are treated by government.
Article X: Structurally Different Units of Governance
Organized Boroughs
The Unorganized Borough
Local Government
Exercises local taxing and assessment powers
Lacks local government; State provides services (Art. X §12)
Property Taxes
Required to annually assess property at full and true value (AS 29.45.110)
No obligation to levy taxes or assess property
Infastructure
Must provide education funding, planning, public facilities, etc
No local contribution to schools or public infrastructure
Because the Constitution itself created the distinction, courts hold that residents of organized vs. unorganized boroughs are not “similarly situated” for equal-protection purposes.
This is why litigation challenging the tax disparity has repeatedly failed.
The “Full and True Value” Mandate and Disparate Local Burdens
AS 29.45.110 requires that municipalities assess property at market value. This statutory command forces inflationary increases in taxable value, produces higher annual property taxes regardless of local income conditions, applies only to organized municipalities.
These mandates reflect the historical assumption that organized boroughs would build their own revenue bases while the unorganized borough would remain sparsely populated with minimal governmental needs.
That assumption is no longer accurate.
PFD Reductions: A Statewide Tax That Magnifies the Disparity
Since 2016, Alaska has diverted billions in PFD payments to cover state spending.
As recognized by economists and the Alaska Supreme Court (Wielechowski), the withheld portion of the PFD is functionally a statewide tax collected from all Alaskans equally. But the benefits of this revenue are not equal. Services funded with diverted PFD dollars include:
Public education
Troopers and VPSOs
Public health
State infrastructure
Welfare programs
Rural aviation
Transportation system subsidies
These services are disproportionately State-provided services in the Unorganized Borough. Residents in organized boroughs help fund these services both through local taxes and reduced PFDs.
This creates a two-tier fiscal burden:
Resident
Local Taxes?
Statewide PFD Reduction Tax?
Net Burden
Organized Borough
Yes (property + sales)
Yes
Highest
Unorganized Borough
No
Yes
Lowest
This is the first time in Alaska history where organized-borough residents are effectively taxed twice, while unorganized-borough residents are taxed once.
Constitutional Tension: Equal Protection vs. Article X
Although courts historically allowed the disparity because “similarly situated persons” analysis distinguished between the two borough types, the introduction of a statewide tax (PFD reduction) changes the constitutional landscape.
Unlike local taxes, PFD reductions apply to all residents equally. The previous argument that unorganized residents are “not similarly situated” weakens because all residents are equally subject to the PFD reduction, but only some must additionally pay property taxes.
This undermines the integrity of the equal-protection framework because the statewide tax (PFD reduction) funds services that only some people receive without contributing locally.
The Legislature has effectively shifted the cost of unorganized-borough services onto residents of organized boroughs. Is this a form of unconstitutional cost-shifting? Probably not under current case law. Is it legally permissible but inequitable taxation? Absolutely. Is it contrary to framers’ intent for “maximum local self-government”? Strongly yes. Is it politically volatile? Undeniably.
Why Courts Would Uphold the System (For Now)
The Alaska Supreme Court would likely uphold the current dual-burden system for the following reasons:
The PFD is not constitutionally mandated in any specific amount.
The Court rarely invalidates legislative fiscal policy.
The framers left revenue structure decisions to the Legislature.
However, Courts can uphold a system while acknowledging it has become fundamentally unfair. This is the position Alaska has reached.
The Path Forward: Legislative Responsibility
The Constitution does not require equal tax burdens across boroughs. But the Legislature has the authority and the responsibility to correct inequities caused by mandatory full-value assessments, lack of taxation in the Unorganized Borough, and PFD reductions functioning as a statewide tax.
Available remedies include statewide assessment in unorganized areas, allowing organized boroughs to cap assessments (e.g., 5%), restoring the statutory PFD formula to eliminate the hidden subsidy, and modernizing Article X through constitutional amendment.
These are legislative policy decisions, not judicial ones.
The combination of a mandatory tax and assessment burden on organized boroughs, zero local tax burden in the Unorganized Borough, and a statewide tax via PFD reductions has created a dual taxation system never envisioned by Alaska’s framers. While technically constitutional, the system is inequitable, unsustainable, in conflict with the promise of “maximum local self-government,” and politically corrosive. Legislative reform is both warranted and overdue.
Ed Martin, Jr. is a retired 50+ year IUOE, General Contractor and long-time Alaskan with a strong belief in the National and State Constitutions and the inherent rights of citizens. He devotes his retirement to investigating Constitutional violation(s) in hopes of protecting the eternal rights of liberty.
There is a very old saying: “A person is foolish who gives pearls to swine.” The implications and application are to avoid giving time, energy, and wisdom to those who do not appreciate or value what is given. Anchorage has acted as one who has not appreciated the pearls of the people, values, and desires of Chugiak / Eagle River (CER). Today, this is more prevalent as Anchorage ignores the CER Comprehensive plan, community councils, Service Areas, and the general voice of the people.
Over the decades, the people of CER have had a strong relationship with the Mat-Su Borough in the support and development of CER. In the ‘50’s and ‘60’s when CER sought for electricity and phone services, it was Mat-Su who came through with MEA and MTA. When resources were sought, it was often Mat-Su who supplied them on the Palmer Hwy, which later became known as the Old Glenn. When CER reflects on its values of life, opportunity, and government, it is with kindred spirit of Mat-Su, not Anchorage.
Throughout the years there has been discussion of detaching from Anchorage. In 1974, a positive vote of the people of CER occurred to detach, but the outcome was overturned by the Alaska Supreme Court in 1975. For the past decade, there have been discussions to detach, but they have been unfulfilled. Despite Eaglexit’s best efforts, including its recent pursual of an informal technical review by LBC, the home rule borough solution faces formidable obstacles and may never come to fruition. Continued concern is that Anchorage is out of control and is taking down communities like CER, which means we need to act now to detach. Annex Now offers an alternative.
In 2024, a new concept called Annex Now to Mat-Su began to be developed. Despite Eaglexit’s best efforts, including its recent pursual of an informal technical review by LBC, the home rule borough solution faces formidable obstacles and may never come to fruition. Annex Now is an organized, unincorporated, grass roots entity of people in Chugiak Eagle River.
In the past year and a half several preliminary discussion meetings occurred, and general announcements were given at the Mat-Su assembly. In May 2025, a 540-page preliminary proposal was submitted to the State Local Boundary Commission, and feedback was returned to the Annex Now group in July. A key question was “What does Mat-Su say about the idea?” On Tuesday, December 16, the Mat-Su Borough Assembly will hear and vote on a resolution to pursue the Annex Now to Mat-Su. Once the Resolution is passed, the process to detach from Anchorage and be annexed to Mat-Su can happen very quickly.
There are many reasons to consider annexing to Mat-Su. First, the State Supreme Court overturned the decision to detach by forming a new, independent Borough as unconstitutional. Second, the concept of detaching from one Borough to be part of another is a viable option by the Local Boundary Commission. Third, annexation to Mat-Su is aligning with a borough proven to be fiscally functional and respectful of resident-respected governance. In addition, it has a well-established and State-recognized effective education system. Fourth, annexation would have economic benefits to all residents of Mat-Su and CER in the form of lower taxes, service fees, permits, and property taxes. In addition, annexation would provide economic stimulus that would be invested in logistic benefits of roads, rail, and jobs rather than tax money going to Anchorage’s failed homeless programs.
Annex Now provides the opportunity of a viable and realistic detachment from Anchorage. On December 16, the Mat-Su Assembly will consider the resolution to pursue interest in the annexation discussion and give notice to the LBC of such investment to the process. If this option is pursued, the final vote will be cast by the people of Mat-Su and CER. Anchorage will not get a vote. Mat-Su residents who approve of annexing CER can attend the Regular Assembly Meeting on December 16 and tell the Mat-Su Assembly that now is the time for the pearls of CER to be honored.
President Donald J. Trump has initiated a significant overhaul of the United States’ childhood vaccination policies, signing a presidential memorandum on December 5, 2025, to align core recommendations with best practices from peer developed countries. This directive comes amid growing concerns over what the administration views as an overly aggressive U.S. vaccine schedule, which currently mandates immunizations against 18 diseases, including COVID-19, for all children.
The memorandum instructs Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director to thoroughly review international standards and the underlying scientific evidence. If foreign practices—such as those in Denmark (10 diseases), Japan (14), or Germany (15)—are deemed superior, U.S. guidelines will be updated accordingly, while ensuring continued access to existing vaccines. Notable differences include the U.S. routine hepatitis B shot for newborns, which is not standard in most developed nations unless the mother tests positive, and annual flu vaccines starting at six months, often not universally recommended elsewhere.
This move aligns with Trump’s “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) agenda, launched earlier in 2025 with an executive order establishing a commission to probe childhood chronic diseases. The administration has already ended blanket COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for children, shifting to individualized clinical decisions. In September, the MAHA Commission unveiled a strategy with over 120 initiatives to combat what it calls a “childhood chronic disease epidemic.”
Trump hailed the initiative on social media, stating, “I am fully confident Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and the CDC, will get this done, quickly and correctly, for our Nation’s Children.” Kennedy, responded enthusiastically, posting, “Thank you, Mr. President. We’re on it.”
As the review unfolds, experts anticipate potential reductions in recommended shots, marking a pivotal shift in U.S. public health strategy under Trump’s second term. The memorandum underscores a commitment to “the best, scientifically-supported medical advice in the world,” but its outcomes could reshape vaccination norms for generations.
On this December 8, 2025, as Catholics worldwide celebrate the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, the story of Lourdes, France, stands as a beacon of faith and miraculous healing, intertwining divine messages with historical and modern acknowledgments.
The history traces back to 1858, when 14-year-old Bernadette Soubirous, a humble shepherdess from a poor family, witnessed 18 apparitions of a “beautiful lady” at the Massabielle grotto. Bernadette entered ecstasies during these visions, which drew crowds despite initial skepticism from local clergy, including parish priest M. Peyramale. The lady revealed a hidden spring, instructing Bernadette to drink from it and urging priests to build a chapel and organize processions. On March 25, the apparition identified herself as “the Immaculate Conception,” affirming a profound message of penance, prayer, and healing. By 1862, the local bishop validated the events, leading to the construction of basilicas that now attract millions of pilgrims annually, with thousands of documented cures at the sanctuary’s medical bureau.
This revelation echoed the Vatican’s formal proclamation just four years earlier. In his 1854 encyclical Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX defined the dogma: “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God… was preserved free from all stain of original sin.” The key message, drawing on Scripture, Tradition, and Church Fathers for unity and devotion, emphasized God’s gift of unique holiness to Mary, preparing her to be the Mother of God.
Tying this legacy to contemporary America, President Donald J. Trump’s 2025 presidential message honors Mary, who brought the Savior into the world. Highlighting Mary’s humble acceptance— “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word” —Trump notes her influence from the Revolutionary War era to modern peace prayers. Trump also honors numerous Catholics who had lasting impacts on American history, medicine, and art.
The Lourdes apparitions validate the Immaculate Conception dogma, proclaimed by Pius IX, fostering global pilgrimage and healing, and now echoed in Trump’s call for faith-inspired peace. This underscores Mary’s intercessory power and promotes humility, peace, and unity, reminding us of the divine grace of God who sent His Son Jesus to die on the cross for the salvation of the world.
Part XI: How Historic Citizen Reliance Constitutes Legal Possession
By Michael Tavoliero
As economic uncertainty hurts Alaskans, every household must document their historic reliance on the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD). Start this today. Catalogue how your family used the PFD over 34 years and send it to Must Read Alaska.
The legislature stopped treating Alaskans as beneficiaries of a public trust in 2016, when Governor Walker started treating the PFD as a discretionary government appropriation. Without protest or legal challenge, the PFD will likely disappear.
One avenue of challenge is Alaska’s public-trust doctrine, whereby resource wealth is held in trust for the people and the legislature acts as trustee, not “owner.” In this way, the Permanent Fund acts as the trust’s corpus, and the PFD is Alaskans’ share of its earnings—just as the people were told it would be.
This is why diverting PFD earmarked funds into general revenue is morally and legally wrong. In State v. Weiss (1985) and Weiss v. State (1997), the Alaska Supreme Court held that when the State manages assets for beneficiaries, it must preserve the corpus, use it only for the beneficiaries’ benefit, and restore diverted assets. Treating PFD and inflation proofing mandates as discretionary appropriations violates a fiduciary duty.
Wielechowski v. State (2017) did not decide who effectively “owns” Permanent Fund earnings or whether the PFD constitutes a right for all Alaskans as beneficiaries of a trust; it held only that the dividend must be funded through typical appropriation channels. The Court expressly declined to rule on the ownership issue or trust status of the PFD. Thus, Wielechowski did not redefine the fundamental purpose of the Fund, or Alaskan’s legal right to the PFD.
From 1982 to 2016, the legislature’s long, open, and continuous administration of the PFD using a single formula (which still exists) created settled public reliance. Alaska courts recognize that where government conduct is sustained, unambiguous, and consistently affirmed, citizens develop a legitimate reliance interest. This is what Alaskans need to document. Under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, the State is prevented from reversing course whenever:
The State took a prior position or course of conduct;
Citizens reasonably relied on that conduct;
That reliance was substantial; and
Injustice would result if the State were permitted to repudiate it.
Municipality of Anchorage v. Schneider, 685 P.2d 94, 96 (Alaska 1984).
Simply put, here is how case law can be applied to the PFD
Estoppel Element
Application to PFD
Legislative Conduct
Four decades of formula-based PFD distribution, publicly affirmed and institutionally administered.
Our Reliance
Alaskans incorporated the PFD into household budgeting, education planning, retirement strategy, and local economies.
Reasonableness
Reliance was encouraged by the State’s repeated statements and action treating the PFD as a consistent benefit of citizenship.
Injustice
Recharacterizing beneficiary income as government revenue transfers wealth from beneficiaries to trustee; a classic breach of fiduciary obligation.
The State may adjust distribution mechanisms for more effective administration, but it may not:
Recharacterize Permanent Fund earnings as general revenue, or
Convert the Dividend from beneficiary entitlement into discretionary appropriation,
without breaching its fiduciary duties under Article VIII and Article IX.
The breach occurs in 2016, when the legislature stopped following the statutory PFD formula and began treating the Earnings Reserve Account as general revenue for discretionary spending, thus abandoning the distinction between its role as trustee of resource-derived wealth and its role as operator of government.
Read together, several Alaskan cases form a coherent legal strategy to establish the PFD as a trust obligation rather than general fund revenue: reliance (Schneider), fiduciary trust (Weiss I & II), and appropriation procedure (Wielechowski).
First, Municipality of Anchorage v. Schneider, 685 P.2d 94 (Alaska 1984), holds that the State may not foster long-term public reliance and then repudiate that conduct where it would cause manifest injustice. From 1982 to 2016, Alaskans relied on the PFD to structure their household finances.
Second, the Mental Health Trust cases—State v. Weiss, 706 P.2d 681 (Alaska 1985), and Weiss v. State, 939 P.2d 380 (Alaska 1997)—hold that when the State holds property in trust for a defined beneficiary class, it owes full fiduciary duties. The State may not repurpose trust assets to solve fiscal problems
Third, Wielechowski v. State, 403 P.3d 1141 (Alaska 2017), held only that PFD payments must be appropriated before distribution under Article IX, §13. It did not decide whether the PFD is a trust-based interest that is off-limits to Legislative tampering. The case clarified procedure, not ownership.
Taken together, these precedents support the following legal structure:
Case
Governing Principle
Implication for PFD
Schneider (1984)
The State may not repudiate a long-standing practice upon which the public reasonably relied.
Four decades of formula-based dividends establish a reliance interest.
Weiss I & II (1985, 1997)
The State must administer trust assets solely for beneficiaries and cannot divert them to general use.
Permanent Fund earnings are held for the people; diversion to government spending is a breach.
Wielechowski (2017)
PFD payments require appropriation, but the Court did not define the nature of the right.
The appropriation step does not eliminate the beneficiaries’ equitable interest.
The statutory PFD formula is not just a policy choice; it is the long-standing mechanism for distributing a trust-based beneficial right. When the legislature began treating Permanent Fund earnings as general revenue and cutting dividends for its own fiscal convenience, it replaced individual Alaskans as beneficiaries, breaching both its fiduciary duty and Alaskan’s reliance interest built over four decades.
The legal consequence of that breach is not rhetorical. Under Weiss, the State must restore the diverted portion of the trust benefit. Under Schneider, the State may not claim fiscal necessity to avoid doing so.
The issue now is not whether the PFD can be paid. The issue is whether the legislature will continue to thumb its nose at Alaskans and treat trust assets as its own.
The Great Debate Complete Series
Check out previous articles in The Great Debate: The People of Alaska vs the Legislature:
