Monday, July 13, 2026
Home Blog Page 4

Anchorage Assembly to Consider Assemblyman George Martinez’s Removal After APOC Violations, Lying Under Oath

Today, July 2, 2026, Assembly Members Jared Goecker and Donald Handeland introduced AR 2026-192, a resolution asking the Assembly to initiate removal proceedings of Assembly Member George Marinez in accordance with Anchorage Municipal Code Section 2.70.030 and directing the Municipal Attorney to retain outside counsel to investigate the allegations detailed in their accusation document. The resolution sponsors issued the following statement:

“If these facts don’t warrant an investigation, it’s hard to imagine what would. An elected official was found by APOC to have illegally used campaign funds for personal benefit and gave testimony the Commission found not credible, under oath,” said Assembly Member Goecker. “Since then, additional questions have emerged involving taxpayer funded travel to Puerto Rico and an apparent undisclosed business interest. The public deserves answers, not assumptions, not excuses, but answers. A vote for this resolution is not a declaration of guilt. It’s a declaration that no elected official is above scrutiny when public trust is on the line.”

“Mr. Martinez has already shown serious judgment problems when it comes to travel paid for by others. After giving sworn testimony about travel that the facts do not support, similar concerns involving taxpayer-funded Assembly travel cannot be brushed aside,” said Assembly Member Handeland. “Anchorage residents deserve to know whether this was legitimate municipal business or another example of travel abuse. When you combine that with additional questions about undisclosed business interests, this is no longer one isolated issue. It is a broader pattern that demands a serious investigation and a clear answer for the public.”

The resolution will appear before the Assembly for action at the July 7 Regular Assembly Meeting. The resolution and supporting documents are available online as Item 12.B. on the July 7 agenda.  

To share your thoughts on the resolution, email all Assembly Members at [email protected]

Press release provided by Assemblymembers Goecker and Handeland.

Opinion: Celebrating SCOTUS’s Unanimous Ruling That States May Prohibit Men from Competing on Women’s Athletic Teams; Calling Alaska to Follow Suit

By Jim Minnery

On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled 6-3 in favor of protecting women’s sports. The decision applied to both Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B. P. J..

The Court held 9–0 that under Title IX, states may restrict girls’ athletic teams based on biological sex, and 6–3 that they may do so under the Equal Protection Clause. The dissents from the liberal justices on Equal Protection preview the next wave of litigation coming from Minnesota, California, and Connecticut— specifically, whether the Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide separate teams based on biology. That question will be answered another day, but today we celebrate a victory that felt nearly impossible just seven years ago.

This win reflects the grace of God and the faithful, persistent work of family policy councils and other activists across the country.

Alaska Family Council joined thirty‑seven other family policy councils in signing onto the brief with Rep. Barbara Ehardt and 205 female legislators including multiple Alaska legislators. The brief (linked here) tells the story of countless female athletes whose opportunities were protected by Title IX.

In the majority opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote, These cases concern two of those state laws, from West Virginia and Idaho. The question before the Court is: Under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, may schools maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females? In other words, may schools determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex? The answer is yes.”

A man does not have a legal right to compete against women just because he believes that he is a woman,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion.

Background on the Cases

In Little v. Hecox, Lindsay Hecox argued that Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act was unconstitutional. This law requires students to participate in sports consistent with their biological sex as determined at birth. Hecox, a biological male who identifies as a woman, sought to compete on women’s track and cross-country teams. Because of this law, he was prevented from participating. Hecox then filed this lawsuit, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it was likely to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, prompting the case to go to SCOTUS.

In West Virginia v. B.P.J., a transgender-identifying middle school student identified only by initials (B.P.J.) is challenging West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act. That case also raises a Title IX claim, alleging that the state law discriminates on the basis of sex in violation of federal civil rights protections.

The Implications of this Decision

In the last several years, 26 states have passed legislation protecting women’s sports. SCOTUS’ ruling protecting Idaho’s law will go a long way in protecting the laws in other states from future litigation. Here in Alaska, because a handful of Republicans continue to give power to the Democrats who are opposed to advancing legislation protecting girls sports, we are without a statute protecting girls from having to compete against boys.

However, Alaska Family Council was at the tip of the spear working closely with the Board of Education and the Alaska School Activities Association to encourage them to pass regulations ensuring biology matters when it comes to athletic competition. They did so soundly and today, girls sports are protected because of these regulations. 

If a conservative Governor is elected and Republicans gain control of the Alaska House or Senate, we might just get a law passed like the other states. It would be a difficult push but it is possible. Even without an allied Legislature, a conservative Governor would control who sits on the Board of Education and would most likely keep the regulations in place. No matter what, we keep pushing for fairness and celebrate common sense lifted up from our nation’s high court.

Opinion: Empty Promises Don’t Pay Dividends; Shelley Hughes Defends Her Take on the PFD

By Shelley Hughes, 2026 Candidate for Governor and former State Senator

I have heard the criticism that my position on the Permanent Fund Dividend means I am giving up. Nothing could be further from the truth. No candidate for governor has fought for the PFD like I have for the last ten years, and I bear the scars to prove it. There is no way I would give up.  

I am being honest with Alaskans, not surrendering and not pandering. Unlike candidates who are making glib promises they can never deliver, I am zeroing-in on the legal and fiscal framework to deliver what I say. Instead of refusing to tell the truth, I am charting the best course forward so the PFD can be paid. I am committing to deliver results, not empty promises. 

As governor, I will introduce a full statutory PFD as my duty requires— to follow the law as it is written— then fight for the largest PFD the legislature will pass. I will make that outcome achievable by addressing the root problems: non-sustainable state spending and our relatively small private sector.  

We can fund a strong PFD without broad based taxes if we are willing to make responsible decisions. That means eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse. It means establishing an inspector general’s office and a sunset audit commission to ensure programs are effective and accountable. It means modernizing state services, so they cost less and deliver more. It means a full focus on developing an energy portfolio, so we finally achieve low-cost energy, and on releasing government lands so private ownership increases— both necessary to diversify our economy along with our revenue streams.  

Until then, under the Alaska Constitution, the legislature may rewrite the law, and they effectively do that each year when they pass the budget bill. The budget each new fiscal year is the law. This legislative authority means the legislature is not bound by previously passed appropriations. That includes the PFD— whether we like it or not. 

Promising to veto the entire state budget over and over and over again until the legislature, supposedly, would approve a full PFD might sound bold, but it is a fool’s errand. It’s not a plan; it won’t work. The governor has no constitutional authority to add a penny to the PFD that the legislature passes. There is no legislative majority supporting a full PFD, and the legislature has not hesitated to override the governor’s vetoes lately.  

In addition, to expect that the governor could bully the legislature into axing the equivalent of thirteen departments of state government at the end of a session, without deliberation or precision, in order to balance the budget and give the governor the win, is magical thinking. Not to mention, it would trigger economic chaos, lawsuits, and a recall petition. 

Now don’t get me wrong. A veto pen is a powerful tool and can be used to play hardball, and I will not hesitate to use it when there is leverage. In this situation, the leverage is not there; it is counter-weighted. A governor being “tough” with repeated full-budget vetoes would not just have a tumultuous remainder of their 4-year term but the harm to our state would be immense. Not only full-stop stagnation, but it would also roil the bond market, tank the Alaska economy, and halt every other effort the governor would attempt. 

One-line slogans are not recipes for governing; they are invitations to disaster. A sweeping and repeated veto approach is not leadership. It is a wrecking ball; a tornado. 

We must also not ignore and be honest about the political consequences of such an approach. Legislators who disagree would quickly highlight every service impacted and hold the governor responsible. That would not strengthen the governor’s position. It would weaken it and hobble the administration on every front. Alaska would be without the strong leader our state needs. Leadership means understanding what is possible and then working relentlessly to achieve it.  

As Alaskans, we must all remember how close we came this year to a very different outcome. Without the changing economic conditions from the war in Iran, broad based taxes loomed in the legislature along with a very small to no PFD at all. We were lucky this time: a temporary, war-driven oil spike papered over the deficit. That reprieve is already fading though— which is exactly why structural fiscal discipline, not luck, is the only durable answer.  

I get that what I am saying is not pleasant. When honesty is not pleasant, some people think telling the truth is a political blunder. They are convinced telling people what they want to hear is a better recipe for political success and power. But I am not running for political success or power, I am running to build a strong Alaska. I am running to ensure fiscal stewardship. I am running so Alaskans won’t lose their PFDs or critical state services.  

I will not promise something I cannot deliver. My commitment is to work as hard as I can to rebuild the PFD by ensuring transparent, accountable, efficient state government and laying the foundation for a robust and diversified economy with diversified revenue streams.  

There is nothing more I would like to see when it comes to the PFD than a return to the days when the dividend was a direct transfer of the funds and simply paid, not a political football in the budget process. This will take hard work. I am ready to tackle the problem, and no other gubernatorial candidate has a better plan or ability to solve it. 

That is not giving up. That is leadership. Thank you for your vote August 18. 

This op-ed was voluntarily submitted by the Hughes-Gettys campaign and not solicited by Must Read Alaska. All candidates running for elected office are welcome and encouraged to submit articles for publication. Must Read Alaska unequivocally supports the election of a conservative candidate to the Office of Governor but does not endorse a particular candidate.

About Hughes-Gettys 

Senator Hughes, Republican Candidate for Governor is teamed with Lt. Governor Candidate General Blake Gettys (Ret.). Hughes, a 50-year Alaskan, has lived in communities throughout the state, spent 30 years in the private sector, and served in the State House 4 years and 8+ years in the State Senate, including as Senate Majority Leader and Judiciary Chair. General Gettys (Ret.), a 32-year resident, served as the 176th Wing Commander and Director, Joint Staff – AK Joint Force Headquarters, Alaska National Guard, JBER. To see the Hughes/Gettys action plan and solutions, visit www.AlaskansforHughes.com. 

Celebrate Independence Since 1776 with 76% Off ANY Must Read Alaska Subscription! Deal Ends July 4th!

This a special year for America, and a special year for Must Read Alaska. We are working hard to deliver fact-based news, generate dialogue among Alaskans, promote Alaskan conservative voices, share our faith, and speak up for Truth, Justice, and Freedom!

We are now offering 76% off ANY plan to new subscribers until July 4th! For as little as $12, you can get a whole year of daily Just Must Read News (just facts, no extras), or go ALL IN and get a one-year subscription to our daily Must Read News and Opinions (facts plus conservative commentary) for only $24!

Check out all our subscription plans here: https://mustreadalaska.com/subscriptions/

Thank you for trusting Must Read Alaska as your news source! We have big things happening behind the scenes to make Must Read Alaska the best it has ever been. You won’t want to miss it!

Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Executive Order Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship

The Supreme Court on June 30, 2026, ruled that children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully present or temporarily visiting the country are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. In a 5-4 decision in Trump v. Barbara (No. 25-365), the Court invalidated key provisions of Trump’s Executive Order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.”

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The Court held that children born on American soil to illegal immigrants or temporary visitors are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore citizens under the Clause. The decision affirmed a district court’s nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the Order.

The majority grounded its ruling in English common law principles of jus soli— citizenship by birth within the sovereign’s territory— as reflected in Calvin’s Case and Blackstone’s Commentaries. Under this tradition, children born within a sovereign’s dominions owed natural allegiance in exchange for protection, subject only to narrow exceptions such as children of foreign ministers. The Court explained that the Citizenship Clause was enacted to overrule Dred Scott v. Sandford and to constitutionalize the principle already expressed in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which granted citizenship to “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.”

The Court concluded that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” refers to the U.S. government’s governing power within its territory rather than a requirement of permanent parental domicile or complete severance from foreign allegiance. Temporary visitors and even those present unlawfully remain amenable to U.S. law while on American soil. Relying on United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Court reaffirmed that children of aliens temporarily sojourning in the United States are citizens. It rejected arguments for a domicile requirement as lacking support in the historical record from the Founding through Reconstruction.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a concurring opinion, joined in part by Justice Sotomayor. She emphasized the Fourteenth Amendment’s universalist and anti-subordination purposes. Jackson argued that the Clause reflects a broad commitment to equality and the eradication of caste systems, extending beyond the specific circumstances of freed slaves to all persons born on U.S. soil. She argued that attempts to limit citizenship based on parental immigration status would distort the Amendment’s remedial aims.

Three Justices dissented in whole or in part. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, authored the principal dissent. He contended that the majority adopted an overly broad, feudal notion of allegiance based solely on territorial birth. In Thomas’s view, post-Revolution American law increasingly required domicile (a permanent home with intent to remain) for full citizenship and complete jurisdiction. The Citizenship Clause, he argued, primarily secured citizenship for freed Black Americans who were domiciled here and owed no foreign allegiance. Children of temporary visitors or unlawful immigrants, according to the dissent, historically remained subject to their parents’ home countries and were not understood to be U.S. citizens.

Justice Samuel Alito filed a separate dissent, joined in part by Justice Gorsuch. He focused on the text of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which the Fourteenth Amendment constitutionalized. Alito interpreted “not subject to any foreign power” to exclude children who would automatically acquire the nationality of their parents’ native country at birth. He argued that the majority’s rule creates problematic dual nationality and departs from the original public meaning of the Clause.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment but dissented in part from the majority’s constitutional analysis. He agreed that the Executive Order could not stand under 8 U.S.C. §1401(a), the statutory provision codifying the Citizenship Clause and long interpreted in line with Wong Kim Ark’s limited exceptions. However, Kavanaugh suggested that constitutional principles might accommodate additional exceptions in light of modern immigration realities and emphasized that Congress retains authority to address the scope of citizenship through legislation consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment.

Getting Hell’s Attention: Evil Is Real, But So Is Truth

Growing up in church, I heard about spiritual warfare frequently. The idea that angels and demons are battling it out until the final days of judgement when all Hell will be cast into the Lake of Fire by Jesus Christ, the Son of God— an idea that sounds like it comes from a fairytale. In our postmodern world, such an idea seems irrational, even to many regular churchgoers. But here is the truth: spiritual warfare is real. And America is war torn. 

How can a rational mind be convinced that spiritual warfare is as real as the mathematical reality that two marbles in one hand plus two marbles in the other means you are holding four marbles? The answer is a culmination of questioning why the world works the way it does, why there is so much evil, so much deception, so much suffering. 

The existence of evil cannot be rationally ignored, and one does not have to get political to recognize it. The existence of murderers, rapists, and sex traffickers is enough to understand the reality of evil. The reality of the atrocities committed during the Holocaust is a well-known and well-documented example of the extent of human evil. 

Unfortunately, modern Americans are losing sight of that reality. There is a strange and growing movement to deny the Holocaust, to turn it into a hoax, and refuse to wrestle with the reality of the evil perpetrated on the Jews and those who helped the Jews. The Holocaust denial movement has become such an issue, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. has multiple pages on its website dedicated to refuting Holocaust denial and distortion and defending the reality of the Holocaust.

G.K. Chesterton talks about the modern tendency to deny the reality of sin in his book Orthodoxy: “Modern masters of science are much impressed with the need of beginning all inquiry with a fact. The ancient masters of religion were quite equally impressed with that necessity. They began with the fact of sin— a fact as practical as potatoes. Whether or no man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing.”

Although the reality of spiritual warfare can be seen clearly without touching on politics, it is also true that the political arena is rife with spiritual warfare.

Politics is not simply a matter of logic and law. It is far more appropriate to say the “art of Politics” than “political science” because politics is not a series of observations, deductions, and cause and effect reactions. Politics is a manifestation of human will. It is, in a way, art in motion, but instead of expressing our humanity on canvas or on a stage, we are expressing it in reality. We are often not very good at it.

Human will is chaotic. It can be beautiful. It can be ugly. It is anything but straightforward. Each person’s will is uniquely shaped by worldview, experience, and desire. How the will of the people is shaped directly impacts the policies that govern our society.

George Washington said in his Farewell Address: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports… It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.”

He also acknowledges that education is equally as vital as morality. “Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened,” said Washington.

Today, we have a largely immoral and undereducated citizenry. Ignorance is easy to manipulate. We know that and so does the devil.

In his 1894 speech “Blessings of Liberty and Education,” Frederick Douglass said, “Education means emancipation. It means light and liberty. It means the uplifting of the soul of man into the glorious light of truth, the light by which men can only be made free.” Douglass educated himself, broke free of slavery, and became one of the most famous abolitionists in American history. This is not a fairytale. This is a real world example of the principle that evil takes advantage of ignorance but knowledge leads to freedom.

The history of human slavery in America is a profound example of evil and both the physical and spiritual warfare necessary to put an end to it. Not only did the South own slaves, but many attempted to justify slavery with false spiritual teachings that twisted Scriptures. In a time when self-proclaimed Christians preached slavery as a moral good and others denounced it as evil, there was no remaining neutral. Either slavery is evil or slavery is good. It cannot be both.

Slavery is evil. No amount of twisted false teaching spewed from pulpits could change that truth. The subsequent Civil War proved America at the time was willing to fight for a moral principle not only with words but with guns. To not simply risk being publicly shamed, but to risk their very lives for truth and justice.

Thank God for the people who sacrificed and fought to end slavery in America. The Americans living in the 1860s had a duty to defend freedom, which relies on moral clarity. Few in the North would have gone to war without an absolute moral conviction that slavery is evil. That kind of moral clarity— not moral inclusivity or relativity— corrected one of America’s greatest faults and brought her in line with her dearest principle that “all men are created equal.” We have the same duty to defend moral clarity today. 

When people divorce politics from the reality of spiritual warfare, they are denying the foundational principle that a free society requires a moral and educated society. We cannot simply seek an educated society, for knowledge divorced from morality turns into either foolishness or cruelty. We also cannot divorce morality from education. The knowledge and discussion of history, science, logic, rhetoric, art, philosophy all strengthen our grasp of truth. Similar to an analogy by St. Clement of Alexandria, truth is the water flowing from God to nourish all the earth. All truth flows from God who is the Truth.

We will continue to see less and less freedom, prosperity, and virtue in our country unless we return to sound biblical teaching. Search the Scriptures and seek the wisdom of God. Read real books. Read history. Reason and think for yourself! Why? Because education is the key to freedom and ignorance will be manipulated by those who seek to do evil. 

Christ calls each believer to take part in the spiritual war between good and evil. Ephesians 6:12 says, “Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”

How do we fight this battle? We must go first to the Scriptures. Ephesians continues: “Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”

Truth, righteousness, peace, faith, salvation, and the Scriptures are the defenses we have against Hell. To gird yourself with Truth, you must know what is true. To armor yourself in righteousness, you must know what is right. To fit your feet with peace, you must know real peace (not just conflict avoidance). God lists truth first and foremost and places faith fourth in the list. This indicates that faith flows from Truth, just as salvation flows from faith. The Scriptures reveal God’s Truth to us and so it is the sword of the Spirit that cuts down lies, destroys evil, and wins the final battle.

When we take spiritual warfare seriously, we get Hell’s attention. The devil will pull out all the stops to pull us away from truth, as he has been doing in this country since its founding 250 years ago. Expect it and be ready.

Supreme Court Rules Against Election Day Cut-Off for Mail-in Ballots

In a 5-4 decision on June 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal law does not prevent states from counting absentee ballots that are postmarked on or before Election Day but arrive up to five business days later. The ruling in Michael Watson, Mississippi Secretary of State v. Republican National Committee et al. (No. 24-1260) reversed a Fifth Circuit decision and upheld Mississippi’s practice, clarifying that the federal election-day statutes set the day for voting but do not impose a nationwide deadline for ballot receipt.

Writing for the Court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, concluded that “nothing in the federal election-day statutes requires ballots to be received by election day.”

Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined it fully, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined most of it, but not Parts II–C–2 and III.

The case centered on Mississippi’s absentee voting rules. The state permits certain residents, including college students away from home and senior citizens, to vote absentee in federal elections. Ballots must be “postmarked on or before the date of the election and received by the registrar no more than five (5) business days after the election.” Mississippi is one of roughly 30 states that count at least some absentee ballots mailed by Election Day but received afterward.

In 2024, the Republican National Committee, the Mississippi Republican Party, and individual plaintiffs sued Mississippi election officials. They argued that federal statutes—3 U.S.C. §1 and 2 U.S.C. §§1 and 7—preempt Mississippi’s law. These statutes set the day for electing Representatives, Senators, and the President as “the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November.” Plaintiffs contended that the word “election” encompasses both the casting of ballots and their receipt by officials, so the federal deadline for the “election” also bars counting ballots received after Election Day. The Libertarian Party of Mississippi filed a parallel suit and the cases were consolidated.

The majority emphasized that the defining element of an “election” has always been the electorate’s choice of candidate. Drawing on contemporary dictionary definitions and precedent such as United States v. Classic (1941), the Court explained that an election is “the expression by qualified electors of their choice of candidates.” According to the Court’s opinion, the choice occurs when voting is complete, not when ballots physically arrive. A recent amendment to the presidential election-day statute reinforces this by defining “election day” with reference to the period of “voting,” including modified periods during certain emergencies.

The Court also pointed to the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA). That statute requires states to allow absent military and overseas voters to cast absentee ballots and creates a federal backup system. UOCAVA repeatedly treats ballot receipt deadlines as a matter of state law. If the federal election-day statutes created a uniform national receipt deadline, references to varying state deadlines would make little sense.

The Constitution’s Electors Clause requires that the day on which electors “shall give their Votes” be uniform nationwide but says nothing about when votes must be received. This structure, the majority observed, envisions receipt occurring after the uniform voting day.

The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ reliance on 19th-century historical practice, in which many states required receipt on Election Day. While such practices existed, plaintiffs could not tie them directly to the text of the federal statutes. State legislatures may have adopted Election Day receipt rules for independent policy reasons, such as concerns about fraud. The Court reiterated that statutes do not “trap in amber” every contemporary practice on the same subject (United States v. Rahimi, 2024). It also found the plaintiffs’ reading of Foster v. Love (1997) unpersuasive, noting that Foster addressed only whether an election may be consummated before federal Election Day and did not speak to ballot receipt.

Policy arguments about election integrity and public confidence, the majority stated, are properly directed to legislatures rather than courts interpreting existing statutes.

The dissent argued that the majority’s decision removes a traditional safeguard against voter fraud. It noted that concerns about fraud were a leading reason for enacting the federal election-day statutes in the first place. A prohibition on counting late-arriving ballots, the dissent contended, would provide an additional hurdle for bad actors seeking to stuff ballot boxes once early results suggest a tight race.

Justice Alito cited the 1948 Texas Senate runoff as a real-world illustration of the risks. Late-arriving votes— reportedly 202 ballots added several days after polls closed, 200 of them for Lyndon Johnson— flipped the outcome in a race Johnson ultimately won by just 87 votes. While the full facts remain disputed, the incident underscores the potential for late ballots to alter close contests.

The dissent maintained that today’s ruling is inconsistent with the text of the election-day statutes, two centuries of historical practice, contemporary election-law principles, and relevant case law. It warned that the decision opens unresolved questions for state officials and courts and risks further undermining public confidence in elections and self-government.

The Supreme Court’s narrow holding leaves many aspects of election administration untouched. Plaintiffs did not challenge the general practice of absentee voting, the use of mail or common carriers, early voting, or the counting and certification of votes after Election Day. The Court also did not address the broader scope of Congress’s power to regulate federal elections.

By clarifying that federal law sets the day for casting votes but does not dictate when states must receive ballots, the decision preserves state flexibility in this area while leaving policy debates about deadlines, verification, and fraud prevention to elected branches of government.

Petersburg’s Dan Sullivan May Face Federal Prosecution for Conspiracy Against Rights

According to an opinion published in the Wall Street Journal on June 30, 2026, Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr., referred to as ‘Decoy Dan’ in the article, may face federal prosecution for violating civil rights laws.

‘Decoy Dan’ is a retired teacher from Petersburg, Alaska, who appears to be intentionally attempting to confuse voters to draw votes away from the incumbent U.S. Senator Dan S. Sullivan (R-Alaska) in this year’s Senate race. Democrats have set their sights on the 2026 race for Alaska’s open Senate seat, spending millions on a smear campaign against the incumbent Republican Senator. The Democrat’s champion is former U.S. Representative Mary Peltola, whose campaign has been criticized for using manipulative and deceptive rhetoric.

The filing for candidacy by Petersburg’s Dan Sullivan sparked controversy as key details— such as the challenger registering as a Republican despite previous Democrat loyalties, admitting to working with a Democrat consultant (who also works with the Peltola campaign), confusing his middle initial with the incumbent’s middle initial in communications with the Division of Elections, copying certain elements of the incumbent’s campaign, and refusing to set himself apart from the incumbent— evidence an intent to confuse voters rather than legitimately run for office.

The controversy went all the way to the Alaska Supreme Court, which ruled on June 29 that the Divisions of Elections could not bar Petersburg Dan from the ballot. However, the controversy may not end there. Ethics and Public Policy Center Fellow Michael Fragoso and former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission (2024) Sean Cooksey co-authored an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal asserting the potential for federal prosecution of Petersburg’s Dan Sullivan for “conspiracy against rights.”

According to Fragoso and Cooksey, “The Democratic consultant’s involvement in Decoy Dan’s gambit suggests two or more people acting in concert to put a candidate on the ballot with the same name as the incumbent. If an investigation can show that they did so to deceive voters who favor Sen. Sullivan into wasting their votes, that will be exactly the kind of conspiracy the government couldn’t prove in Mr. Mackey’s case.”

Douglass Mackey had been prosecuted by the U.S. Justice Department for conspiracy against rights after posting anti-Hiliary Clinton memes. The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Mackey’s conviction because it was not proved at trial that anyone had actually been tricked as a result of Mr. Mackey’s tweets.

“As for the trickery itself, the proof is in the pudding,” writes Fagoso and Cooksey. “Unlike proving the negative, as in Mackey, here the desired deceptive outcome will be actual votes for Decoy Dan. The existence of such votes will be evidence of the conspiracy’s success.” After the November election, the FBI could investigate the votes cast for Petersburg Dan. If they find some voters who were confused and voted for Petersburg Dan but intended to vote for the incumbent Sullivan, the Court may convict Petersburg Dan and the others involved for conspiracy against rights.

Analysis: The “Novel” Tax Democrat Senators Packed into AK LNG Bill Burdens Small Businesses, Chills Investment

One of the major issues driving debate on HB 381— the Alaska LNG gasline bill— is the Senate’s obsession with passing a tax on “pass-through” entities. Although legislators have frequently referred to this tax as “closing the S-corp loophole,” the current iteration of the tax would apply to any “pass-through entity,” which would include sole proprietorships, partnerships, and LLCs that earn oil and gas-related income in Alaska. The bill would effectively institute a new State income tax on primarily small businesses in the oil and gas industry.

The structure of an S-corp is not a “loophole,” but a way for small businesses to avoid double taxation. A corporation may only be taxed as an S-corp if there are fewer than 100 shareholders, making the structure best for small to medium, local businesses. Rather than pay a corporate income tax, the tax “passes through” to the shareholders, who pay federal income tax on profits when they file their individual taxes. Because Alaska does not impose a State income tax on individuals, shareholders who make profits under an S-corp structure do not pay taxes to the state. This is not a loophole; this is a well-established business structure that strengthens and encourages small to medium businesses.

However, Democrat legislators have been working overtime to dismantle the S-corp structure that protects small-to-medium Alaskan businesses and instead force a particular sector of those businesses to pay an arbitrary State income tax.

According to a presentation by the state’s Department of Revenue on June 27, 2026, the pass-through tax in the current version of HB 381 is “a relatively novel concept and there may be unintended consequences and unforeseen difficulties with compliance and administration.” DOR highlighted difficulties that the new tax poses both for taxpayers and the State administration as well as the “indeterminate” fiscal impact.

F. Steven Mahoney, J.D., C.P.A., an accountant on behalf of Glenfarne Alaska LNG, also raised concerns to legislators regarding the tax on pass-through entities. According to Dr. Mahoney, the new tax is “rushed, targeted, and volatile.” Dr. Mahoney pointed out that there has been “no meaningful analysis on whom and how the tax structure works in practice or application using Alaska’s existing Corporate Income Tax framework.” Additionally, Dr. Mahoney told legislators, “Forcing pass-through entity (PTE) tax into the Corporate Income Tax (“CIT”) structure does not work.”

All in all, Democrats legislators’ attempt to glean off of small businesses involved in the AK LNG project raises genuine concern for taxpayers, project investors, and the State’s administrative staff.

The new tax on pass-through entities would hit sole proprietorships, partnerships, and LLCs that earn taxable income from the production of oil or gas from a lease or property in the state; from the transportation of oil or gas by pipeline in the state; from the supply of oil or gas for transportation by pipeline in the state, whether directly, to an intermediary, or as an intermediary; from gas treatment, carbon capture, or carbon storage activities in the state; from liquefied natural gas processing in the state; from the marine transportation of liquefied natural gas produced in the state. These businesses would be subject to the following bracketed tax rates:

Taxable incomeTax rate under HB 381 CONF COM APTD H&S
Less than $1 million0
$1-2 million5% on income over $1m
$2-3 million$50,000 + 6% on income over $2m
$3-4 million$110,000 + 7% on income over $3m
$4-5 million$180,000 + 8% on income over $4m
$5+ million$260,000 + 9.4% on income over $5m

Currently, the House and Senate are working in conference committee to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions of HB 381. The Legislature expects to vote tomorrow, July 1, 2026, on the final version produced in conference committee.

Full bill text: HB0381F