Tuesday, July 14, 2026
Home Blog Page 5

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

Natalie Spaulding
-
0
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

Natalie Spaulding
-
2
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

Natalie Spaulding
-
0
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

Petersburg’s Dan Sullivan Allowed on Ballot

Natalie Spaulding
-
3
Petersburg’s Dan Sullivan Allowed on Ballot

After hearing oral arguments, yesterday, June 29, 2026, the Alaska Supreme Court has ruled that Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., a teacher from Petersburg with the same first and last name as incumbent Senator Dan Sullivan, is allowed to appear on the ballot as a candidate for U.S. Senate. Petersburg Dan will appear on the ballot simply as “Sullivan, Daniel J. Jr.” with no party affiliation. The incumbent Senator Dan Sullivan will appear as “Sullivan, Dan S. (Registered Republican) incumbent.”

The race for Alaska’s open U.S. Senate seat is a key race garnering keen media attention as Democrats spend big money to flip the seat. The major players are incumbent U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), who has been serving Alaska in the U.S. Senate for 10 years, and Democrat Mary Peltola, who represented Alaska in the House of Representatives from 2022-2024. Recently, a high-profile controversy resulted from the filing for candidacy of Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr., a teacher from Petersburg with the same first and last name as the incumbent Senator.

After Petersburg Dan filed, switched his party affiliation to Republican, ripped off the incumbent Senator’s campaign design, and seemed unwilling to distinguish himself from the incumbent, Republicans asserted that Petersburg Dan was not running with an intent to serve as senator, but instead with the intent to confuse voters and draw votes away from the incumbent.

The Division of Elections then launched an investigation. After questioning Petersburg Dan and reviewing the evidence, the Division of Elections decided on June 15 that Petersburg Dan did not properly file and could not appear on the August primary ballot. Petersburg Dan appealed the decision on June 22. On June 27, the Superior Court ruled in favor of Petersburg Dan, stating he could not be barred from the ballot. The Division of Elections then appealed the ruling to the Alaska Supreme Court. On June 29, the Alaska Supreme Court agreed with the Superior Court and ordered the Division of Elections to allow Petersburg Dan on the ballot.

Read about the oral arguments presented to the Alaska Supreme Court in Division of Elections v Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr.: Alaska Supreme Court Hears Petersburg Dan Case; Decision Expected Today or Tomorrow

Alaska Supreme Court Hears Petersburg Dan Case; Decision Expected Today or Tomorrow

Natalie Spaulding
-
2
Alaska Supreme Court Hears Petersburg Dan Case; Decision Expected Today or Tomorrow

This morning, June 29, 2026, the Alaska Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Dan J. Sullivan vs. Division of Elections, a case concerning the eligibility of a man named Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr. to appear on the November ballot alongside the incumbent Senator Daniel S. Sullivan.

Both Democrats and Republicans recognize the race for Alaska’s open U.S. Senate seat as a key race with substantial impacts on both the State of Alaska and the nation. The major players in the race are incumbent U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), who has been serving Alaska in the U.S. Senate for 10 years, and Democrat Mary Peltola, who represented Alaska in the House of Representatives from 2022-2024. Recently, a high-profile controversy has resulted from the filing for candidacy of Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr., a teacher from Petersburg with the same first and last name as the incumbent Senator.

After concerns were raised that Petersburg Dan filed with intent to confuse the ballot rather than to legitimately run for office, the Division of Elections launched an investigation. On June 15, after questioning Petersburg Dan and reviewing the evidence, the Division of Elections decided that Petersburg Dan did not properly file and could not appear on the August primary ballot. Petersburg Dan appealed the decision on June 22. On June 27, the Superior Court ruled in favor of Petersburg Dan, stating he could not be barred from the ballot. The Division of Elections then appealed the ruling to the Alaska Supreme Court.

State’s Argument: Authority to Disqualify for Intentional Confusion

Christopher Murray, representing the Division of Elections, framed the case around “first principles”: elections exist to accurately ascertain the public will, and ballots exist to fairly convey voter intent. He invoked Alaska precedent and statutory duties (including the Division’s charge under AS 15.15.030 to facilitate fairness, simplicity, and clarity and to reflect the voter’s intent) to argue that the Division must safeguard ballot integrity when a candidate’s actions threaten to mislead voters.

The State’s central claim is that Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. filed his declaration of candidacy not to distinguish himself or seek office but to deliberately “confuse himself” with the sitting U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan. Murray contended this purpose would undermine the ballot’s function, particularly in Alaska’s top-four primary, by causing voters intending to support the incumbent to mistakenly select the challenger. He argued the Division is not obligated to deploy design tools to mitigate confusion where the confusion is the candidate’s clear objective; instead, the Division may disqualify the filing as not “properly filed.”

To locate authority, Murray pointed to AS 15.25.030 (declaration of candidacy), emphasizing the certification that the declaration is “true and complete” and drawing an implied good-faith requirement that the filing be for the purpose of actually seeking office. He linked this to the Division’s duty under AS 15.15.030 to produce ballots that most accurately reflect voter intent. He cited the administrative regulation 6 AAC 25.260 (limiting director’s review to grounds related to qualifications addressed in the declaration), asserting the Division acted within that scope by evaluating the declaration’s content and associated records. He further referenced AS 15.25.060’s “properly filed” language as the statutory hook for excluding filings that subvert the ballot’s integrity.

Murray highlighted factual signals of intent, notably that Mr. Sullivan initially asked to be listed as “Dan S. Sullivan”—mirroring the incumbent’s middle initial—before retracting eight hours later. He argued this was not an innocent error but part of a pattern. Responding to questions about remedial choices, he maintained disqualification was justified and within the Division’s authority given unprecedented facts. He also urged the Court not to apply the usual canon of resolving ambiguity in favor of ballot access because access here would harm the electorate’s ability to choose, given the name confusion.

On remedies if disqualification is rejected, Murray accepted that the Division must then determine ballot presentation to mitigate confusion (e.g., name formatting, party designation) and asked the Court to allow the Division to make these determinations promptly on remand rather than dictate specifics.

Sullivan’s Argument: Lack of Authority and Constitutional Limits

Jeffrey Robinson, representing Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., argued the Division lacks statutory and regulatory authority to exclude a candidate based on subjective assessments of intent or “good faith.” He asserted the Division’s approach effectively adds a fourth substantive qualification for federal office, violating the U.S. Constitution’s Qualifications Clause, which sets objective criteria: age, duration of citizenship, and residency. Any requirement premised on intent, motive, or viewpoint is subjective, content/viewpoint-adjacent, discretionary, and risks advantaging incumbents.

Robinson emphasized Alaska’s regulations (6 AAC 25.260) strictly limit the Division’s qualification review to grounds in the complaint related to qualifications addressed in the declaration. He contended there is no statutory or regulatory authority to police motives. He distinguished permissible state power under the federal Time, Place, and Manner Clause (Article I, Section 4), which encompasses neutral, non-discriminatory procedures (deadlines, signature thresholds, formatting), from impermissible substantive disqualifications based on intent to confuse.

He underscored that potential confusion is a ballot-design problem within the Division’s ministerial function, not a basis for exclusion. He noted the Division initially certified Mr. Sullivan’s declaration as Republican and indicated his name would appear as “Sullivan, Dan J.”—demonstrating that middle initials and formatting can distinguish candidates. He cautioned against slippery-slope policing of candidate motives, pointing out that people run for many reasons (issue advocacy, long-term support-building), and these do not justify disqualification absent explicit legal standards.

Robinson argued that if the Division wants additional guardrails, it could promulgate neutral, prospective regulations (e.g., signature thresholds), but cannot, in the current framework, impose a subjective “good faith” filter. He also addressed comparisons to other cases: anti-subversion oaths have been struck as violating the Qualifications Clause, and the “None of the Above” Louisiana case involved a candidate’s legal name change post-certification— the lesson being that states should rely on neutral formatting rules and actual names rather than subjective intent assessments. On process, he maintained he challenged the Division’s authority rather than granular fact findings, insisting those findings were made without legal authorization.

Judicial Scrutiny of the Division’s Authority and Actions

The justices pressed both sides on statutory grounding and limiting principles. Justice Henderson asked where AS 15.15.030 imposes the contested requirement and where AS 15.25.030 states a declaration must be for actually seeking office. She characterized the Division’s proposed standard as amorphous and broad, raising concerns about what “intent” encompasses and how the framework would constrain discretion. Justice Oravek highlighted the distinction between seeking to become a candidate versus seeking to be an office holder, probing the Division’s premise that lack of intent to serve could justify disqualification. He questioned why the Division chose the most extreme remedy when it controls the ballot design and has tools to mitigate confusion.

Justice Pate asked where the specific disqualification authority rests and whether ambiguity exists. He raised the principle from Alaska Democratic Party v. Beecher that ambiguity in election statutes should be resolved in favor of eligibility, asking why that should not apply here. Chief Justice Carney questioned why the Division took the “most extreme possible remedy” rather than lesser measures, and whether voters could be trusted to distinguish between two similarly named candidates, noting that the similarity is a reality.

The Court scrutinized the regulatory scope of 6 AAC 25.260, which confines director review to qualifications addressed in the declaration, and challenged the Division’s inference of good faith from certification language. Multiple justices suggested the Division conflated potential confusion, which it can mitigate through presentation, with the necessity of exclusion. They also probed whether the Superior Court overreached by dictating ballot listing specifics and whether any party had preserved arguments about alternative ballot formatting decisions.

Overall, the bench exhibited skepticism about the Division’s asserted authority to divine and act on subjective intent without explicit statutory authorization, and emphasized the availability of less drastic, design-based remedies within the Division’s control.

The Court’s decision is expected by tomorrow, June 30, 2026, to meet ballot printing deadlines.

Full Hearing

Listen to the full Alaska Supreme Court hearing here: Alaska Supreme Court: State of Alaska, Division of Elections v. Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr.

Service to My Country: Zack Gottshall, Marine and Army Veteran

GUEST CONTRIBUTOR
-
0
Service to My Country: Zack Gottshall, Marine and Army Veteran

When I first stepped into the United States Marine Corps in the 1990s, I never imagined the path ahead. For anyone who has wondered about a life of service, my journey took me across two branches— the Marine Corps and later the Army— shaping who I became and what I learned. I retired with a total of 23 years of service, and in sharing my story, I hope to offer a glimpse into the meaning, the challenges, and the lessons that service can bring. In those decades, I faced critical transitions, personal challenges, and enduring lessons. By sharing these lessons, I hope to offer perspective and value to the next generation whether they choose service or another path of purpose.

I chose the Marine Corps largely because my older brother was already a Marine. Growing up, I knew if I picked another branch, I would never hear the end of it! But it wasn’t just rivalry. I admired the Marines’ camaraderie and history. Once I joined, it deepened the bond with my brother. For decades now, we have shared the Marine Corps birthday— a tradition unlike any other in my family. The pride, discipline, and legacy of the Corps shaped me, not just as a Marine, but as a brother and a leader.

After my discharge from the Marine Corps, I thought my service was over. But after 9/11, the Army gave me a second chance. With different standards, they offered me not only a role I wanted, but a renewed sense of purpose and even a bonus. In the Army, I had the pleasure of serving in the Republic of Korea, in Germany, and with Army Central Command both in the United States and abroad. Those experiences fast-tracked me into leadership roles, pushing me to grow faster than I had imagined. As I advanced in leadership, I ultimately chose to assess for warrant officer in my field. This transition changed everything: my responsibilities, my role, and even how I related to those I once served alongside. I now had to approach the mission with a broader perspective, knowing that my actions and decisions carried new weight.

Being selected as a Warrant Officer was one of the greatest honors of my military career, but it was also one of the most difficult transitions I would ever experience. Overnight, my responsibilities changed. I was no longer viewed solely as a leader of Soldiers but as a technical expert and trusted advisor to commanders. That change required me to rethink not only how I approached the mission, but also how I approached people. Relationships with peers naturally evolved, expectations increased, and every recommendation I made carried greater weight. I quickly learned that technical competence alone would never be enough. To be effective, I had to earn the trust of both commanders and the Soldiers I served by remaining approachable, objective, and committed to the mission above myself. As I progressed from Warrant Officer One through Chief Warrant Officer Three, I came to appreciate that the most respected leaders were rarely the loudest or the most authoritative. They were the ones who listened first, remained teachable, and never forgot who they were serving. That realization fundamentally changed my perspective on leadership. I discovered that true influence is earned through competence, integrity, consistency, and humility. It took time for me to mature into that perspective, and now, looking back, I recognize those lessons as some of the most valuable of my career— not only in uniform, but in every aspect of my life that followed.

While deployed to Kandahar, Afghanistan, serving with U.S. Forces Afghanistan in the Kandahar Intelligence Fusion Center, I was responsible for providing daily intelligence briefings to coalition forces conducting combat operations throughout southern Afghanistan. Over time, I developed close relationships with many of the service members I briefed, watching them prepare for missions day after day and welcoming them back when they returned. During many of those operations, I also monitored live video feeds from multiple intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms providing overwatch for the forces on the ground. On one tragic day, while observing one of those live feeds, I witnessed the attack that claimed the lives of seven of my friends. The enemy had concealed improvised explosive devices within the compound walls and around the property, turning what appeared to be a routine operation into a devastating loss. Witnessing their final moments in real time forever changed my understanding of the true cost of military service.

A quick interjection…. We need more stories! Are you a veteran or active-duty service member? Please share your story and keep the series going! Know someone with a story? Encourage them to share!

More submission details here: “Service to My Country” Series Story Request

Thank you! Now back to the story…

While I was on patrol in Kabul in August, a blast threw me approximately eight to ten feet into a parked vehicle. I suffered a concussion, a ruptured eardrum, abrasions, and other blast-related injuries that required immediate medical treatment. Less than two months later, on October 6, 2009, I was part of a multi-vehicle Humvee convoy that came under attack. An improvised explosive device detonated beneath the lead vehicle, bringing the convoy to an immediate halt. Moments later, a second explosion struck the trail vehicle, effectively trapping us in an enemy ambush with no avenue of escape. After engaging in the firefight and helping secure the area, I returned to my Humvee. Within moments, another buried IED detonated near the front passenger side of my vehicle, knocking me unconscious. I regained consciousness while receiving emergency medical treatment before being evacuated back to Kandahar for additional care. Those two concussive events, occurring less than two months apart, would prove to be far more significant than I could have imagined.

Because of my career field, it was a common fear that admitting to psychological impacts from trauma might jeopardize one’s security clearance. Because of that, I began to avoid follow-on medical treatment for my injuries— choices that would shape the long-term effects to come.

Having witnessed the loss of close friends and having survived multiple concussive blast injuries in such a short period of time, my life was changed in ways I could not have understood at the time. Ironically, after spending years learning that humility was one of the greatest attributes of effective leadership, I found myself abandoning that very principle when I needed it most. Because of the career field I served in, there was a common belief that admitting to psychological struggles or cognitive difficulties could jeopardize one’s security clearance and, ultimately, one’s career. Rather than asking for help, I convinced myself I could simply push through it. Pride replaced humility, and for more than a decade I lived with both PTSD and post-concussive syndrome resulting from multiple concussive injuries. Those conditions slowly influenced nearly every aspect of my life. They affected my judgment, my relationships, my career, and, most painfully, my family. My wife and children experienced the consequences alongside me, even though they had never stepped onto the battlefield.

It was not until after I retired that I finally recognized the error of my ways. A close friend and fellow veteran’s testimony opened my eyes to the pride that had blinded me. Mike Stone reminded me of the very lessons I had learned throughout my military career but had failed to apply in my own life for nearly a decade. I recommitted myself to God. I focused on obedience to what God was calling me to do, that being a strong devotion to serving my family, my community, and others. In that obedience, I began to experience genuine healing. That healing restored not only my own life, but also my family’s. It renewed relationships that had been strained for years, brought peace back into our home, and restored a sense of happiness and purpose that had slowly disappeared for more than a decade.

If I could leave one message for the next generation, it would be this: never forget the life lessons you have learned— live them. Integrity and accountability are not qualities to embrace only when they are convenient; they must become part of your character. Learn the difference between confidence and pride. Confidence allows you to lead with conviction. Pride convinces you that you no longer need others. Never allow pride to keep you from asking for help when you need it. Today, I am proud to be an Alaskan, proud to be a local small business owner, and grateful for the opportunities I have been given to continue serving others. Most of all, I am thankful to give back to my community, to the servicemen, women, and veterans who will always be my brothers and sisters in arms, and to remain obedient to God and my Lord Jesus Christ. If sharing my experiences helps even one person avoid the mistakes I made, encourages someone to seek help before pride gets in the way, or inspires one young American to pursue a life of purpose and service, then every lesson I learned was worth sharing

More in Series

Service to My Country: Dr. Michael Hanifen, United States Air Force Veteran
Service to My Country: Josh Church, Marine Special Ops
Service to My Country: Dana Raffaniello, U.S. Marines
Service to My Country: Must Read Alaska Veteran Series for America 250 – Natalie Spaulding Interview
Service to My Country: Paul A. Bauer, Jr., Army Airborne Infantry

Pro Deo et Patria (For God and Country) 

Deacon Desiderio "Dez" Martinez
-
0
Pro Deo et Patria (For God and Country) 

As our country approaches our 250th Anniversary, there are many celebrations being planned all across our blessed homeland. Many fond memories come to mind as I ponder what this means to those who gave their all to secure and ensure our continued freedom. One phrase that comes to mind is: “Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.”  

This phrase once haunted me in my younger years as my sister would say it over and over again as she practiced her typing. Honestly, if you grew up as either a Baby-Boomer or Generation X’er, how can you not remember this from typing class?  I cannot remember if I ever registered the words she was repeating nor the meaning of those words at that time, back then it was just annoying but today, as the words reappeared from my memory, the words are much more meaningful and profound. A phrase so simple, used to time the number of words typed correctly, filled with the duty and responsibility of every American who truly loves this country.   

As I now repeat this phrase in my mind, it serves as a reminder that we are privileged to serve, much more than a duty, but should it ever become a duty, one should embrace it with honor and readiness.  

From the beginning of time, or close to it, God has called and anointed men, and women to lead armies against His enemies; Joshua, David, Joan of Arc, just to name a few. 

When we would visit my grandparents, I would see the pictures of my maternal grandfather and all my uncles in their Navy uniforms. Every time I would see those pictures and the pictures of my dad and his brother in their Army uniforms, I would remember that phrase and repeat those words, silently, over and over in my head and think, they came to the aid of their country.  

Although I really did not understand the full depth of their service at the time, just seeing them in their uniforms, knowing that when Uncle Sam called, they all answered the call for God and country. 

My father-in-law, a decorated Korean War Veteran was awarded two Purple Hearts, having served two tours in the jungle of Korea, at the age of 17. His family’s military service dates back to the Civil War and as far back as 1854 with one of his great-great-great grandfathers who was part of the “Horseback Company” Co. C, 2nd Brigade, 1st Division, New Mexico Mounted Militia. He was wounded by two arrows while serving alongside Federal Troops due to his expertise with horses and familiarity with the terrain.   

Being born into a family of service men and marrying into a family of military men ignited a fire within me do my part for a country I truly love. These men served because they believed in the American Dream. Not only what was happening, but what could be for all men and women in a Country for those who longed to be free.  I knew I had to be part of this legacy. I could do nothing less than what my ancestors had done and that was to serve my country for the blood, sweat, and tears that flowed generations before me to secure my rights and my freedom. I had to continue to ensure the same rights and freedom for my own children and grandchildren, so in 1987, I proudly raised my hand to serve in the United States Air Force. I ended my Active duty after 20-years, 6 months and 22-days having served during Desert Shield, Desert Storm, Iraq, Afghanistan, and I would do it all over again.  

To risk everything for God and Country, the brave men who drafted and signed the Declaration of Independence in reality signed their own death sentences. They believed in a free state where the tyranny of a monarchy would never again reign over them and keep them shackled by their unjustly rule.  

The Preamble, the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America, kicks it off: 

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”  

It flows into the Declaration of Independence as it reads: 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (emphasis mine) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness… But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”  

There are countless number of men, women and children, whose names we may never know, who shed their blood to preserve the values this country stands for and the freedoms we are blessed to have. If we forget how we attained said freedoms, their sacrifice would be for naught. 

When we are faced with the possibility of war, Augustine of Hippo, reminds us that “Peace should be the object of your desire; war should be waged only as a necessity, and waged only that God may by it deliver men from the necessity and preserve them in peace.” He continues, that even while fighting, one must keep mercy in view: “Let necessity, therefore, and not your will, slay the enemy who fights against you.” 

We are One Nation Under God. We are the Land of the Free, because of the brave men, women and children who gave their lives for our country. 

As G.K. Chesterton so eloquently put it: “The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.” 

Fly your American Flag proudly, not just in the month of July, but every day. And remember all those who gave up everything so you could live in the Greatest Country in the world. 

And always remember, if the time ever comes: “Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.” 

Live your life worthy of HIS Sacrifice + 
God Bless America + 
Deacon Dez

Analysis: The True Aim of the AK LNG Project That Legislators Won’t Say Out Loud

SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR
-
1
Analysis: The True Aim of the AK LNG Project That Legislators Won’t Say Out Loud

This article was originally published in the author’s personal Substack on 6/19/2026 under the title “The Urgency Nobody Will Defend.”

By Dana Raffaniello

Natural gas is a commodity. It trades on volume and proximity to market, not on scarcity or specialty value. Qatar, Australia, the U.S. Gulf Coast, and a dozen other suppliers compete on the same global spot price, and the margins on commodity LNG are thin by the standards of any other energy investment. Glenfarne’s own consultant told the Alaska Senate Finance Committee on May 27 that gas “is not the driver” of this project’s economics and that it “is not worth much.” Nobody followed up. Nobody asked what was worth much instead.

That single exchange should have ended the urgency argument the day it happened. Instead, the governor and the operator have spent the special session telling Alaskans the opposite: that a market window is closing, that delay is costly, that the legislature must act now or lose the opportunity. If the commodity itself is not the driver, the market-window argument is being made about a product nobody involved says is actually driving the deal. That is not a minor inconsistency. It is the entire justification for the speed at which this bill has moved, collapsing under testimony supplied by the people asking for the speed.

What the governor has said, and not said

Governor Dunleavy has been publicly describing a different project than the one being sold to the legislature since at least December 2022, when he published an op-ed on RealClearEnergy titled “Alaska’s Map to Clean Hydrogen Leadership.” He wrote that natural gas is a key ingredient for hydrogen production and that Alaska is positioned to compete because of its geology suited for carbon capture. That same month, the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation submitted a concept paper to the U.S. Department of Energy describing a hydrogen production hub at the Nikiski terminal, fed by North Slope gas through the AKLNG pipeline, sequestering captured carbon dioxide in underground formations. He has traveled to Japan twice promoting this combination of LNG, hydrogen, and carbon management to the same audiences AGDC now cites as the urgent buyers.

None of that record describes a commodity gas sale. It describes a credit-generating industrial process that happens to use a gas pipeline as its delivery mechanism. The governor has had this language available to him for four years. He has not used it once during the special session to explain why the bill needs to pass in 30 days, then 30 more.

What Glenfarne has said, and not said

Glenfarne released a public cost range for the project for the first time on June 4, more than two weeks into the special session that was supposedly urgent enough to require it. The range carried no stated cost class, no contingency methodology, and no independent verification. The company has not produced the detailed economic model its own consultant told the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee in December could not yet be contemplated. It has not stated, anywhere on the public record, whether its Nikiski terminal is designed to produce clean hydrogen, what volume, or what share of the project’s financing case depends on it.

A company asking a state legislature to permanently restructure property tax law in 30 days ought to be able to answer what the project actually produces. Glenfarne has not answered that question once.

The deadline that explains everything else

There is exactly one date in the public record that explains a 30-day clock with any precision. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed July 4, 2025, set December 31, 2027 as the construction commencement deadline for the Section 45V clean hydrogen production tax credit. Alaska’s special session legislation sets its own construction trigger at January 1, 2028. Those are the same deadline, stated in two different documents, by two different governments, eighteen months apart.

The 45V credit pays up to $3 per kilogram of qualifying clean hydrogen for ten years to projects that begin construction before that date. At the production volume AGDC itself proposed to the Department of Energy, that credit is worth up to $1.5 billion a year. No fiscal note before the Alaska Legislature has ever quantified it. No committee chair in either chamber has asked Glenfarne whether it applies.

This is the urgency. Not a market window for a commodity that Glenfarne’s own adviser says is not the driver. A federal construction deadline attached to a credit program that has never been named on the floor of either chamber.

That deadline determines whether the operator captures roughly a billion and a half dollars a year for a decade, and it has nothing to do with whether Cook Inlet runs short of gas or whether Asian buyers sign contracts in 2026 instead of 2027.

The House had a reason to rush. The Senate does not.

The House passed its version of HB 381 on a deadline the governor set, under pressure from an operator who needed a bill before this legislature adjourned. Whatever the merits of that bill, the House’s incentive to move fast tracked Glenfarne’s incentive to move fast, and the result was a floor amendment package that cut the alternative volumetric tax to six and thirteen cents per thousand cubic feet, deleted the municipal equity option, and exempted the credit-generating infrastructure from local taxation, all without a single corrected fiscal note showing what those rates would actually produce.

The Senate’s incentive is not the same. The Senate does not answer to Glenfarne’s construction calendar. It answers to Alaskans who will live with this tax structure for the next thirty years. There is no version of the Alaska Constitution’s mandate to develop resources for the maximum benefit of the state’s people that requires the Senate to match the House’s deadline because the House’s deadline happened to align with a federal tax credit window the House was never told about either.

The Senate has the leverage here, and the leverage is time. The 45V deadline is the operator’s problem, not Alaska’s. A developer that needs to break ground by January 1, 2028 to preserve a tax credit worth $1.5 billion a year does not walk away from a negotiation because Alaska takes a few more months to see the complete financial picture before voting. The IRS five percent safe harbor provision lets a developer lock in 45V construction eligibility through equipment purchases alone, without breaking physical ground, which means even Glenfarne’s own federal deadline does not require the legislature to act on the timeline it has been given.

What the Senate should actually do

Stall it. Not to kill the pipeline. To find out what it is.

Demand the complete economic model GaffneyCline told the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee in December did not yet exist. Demand a fiscal note that quantifies the 45Q and 45V credit streams instead of pretending they are not part of the deal. Demand to know whether the Nikiski terminal is designed to produce hydrogen, and if so, at what volume, and what becomes of the credit revenue once it exists. Demand the AGDC-Glenfarne governance and collateral agreements that have been withheld from legislative review since at least February under a confidentiality framework the bill’s own drafters now claim does not permit hiding exactly this kind of information.

None of that requires opposing the pipeline. Alaska’s gas is real. Alaska’s geology is real. The case for connecting a stranded resource to a paying market is legitimate on its own terms. What is not legitimate is permanently surrendering the state’s taxing authority over that resource on a clock set by a deadline the people asking for the vote will not name, for a commodity their own consultant says is not the point.

If LNG were actually the driver, the governor and the operator would be making the LNG case. They are not. They are describing carbon capture geology, hydrogen production volumes, and federal trade missions, then asking the legislature to vote as if none of that exists. The Senate does not owe Glenfarne the same rush the House gave it. It owes Alaskans the complete picture before it signs away thirty years of tax authority on a project nobody in government will fully describe.

Dana Raffaniello lives in Palmer, Alaska. He works as a network engineer, reads Alaska energy legislation closely, and publishes analysis of its fiscal and structural implications at raff6482.substack.com. He is running for the Mat-Su Borough Assembly, District 2. He has no commercial interest in any energy project discussed in this analysis.

Opinion: Reviewing the Record Reveals Clear Progressive Trend in Alaska Politics Despite Republican Leadership

SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR
-
4
Opinion: Reviewing the Record Reveals Clear Progressive Trend in Alaska Politics Despite Republican Leadership

By Michael Tavoliero

Why are we Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and the remaining thoughtful groups that are sick and tired of being sick and tired with Alaska politics not telling Alaska’s political leadership to stop this fool’s parade and seriously approach a winning strategy for the legislature?  

Keep in mind: A Decade of Failure by Incompetence: 

2015 – Medicaid Expansion by Executive Action 

Governor Walker expanded Medicaid without direct legislative approval, and the Legislature failed to stop it. Alaska inherited a larger permanent entitlement structure, future state costs, and a deeper health-care bureaucracy. 

2016 – Education Funding Without Reform 

Lawmakers continued funding the existing education system without requiring performance accountability, administrative reform, school choice, consolidation, or measurable student outcomes. 

2017 – Oil Tax Policy Without Strategy 

HB 111 ended cashable oil tax credits, but Alaska still failed to adopt a durable resource strategy for production, revenue, investment stability, and fiscal discipline. 

2018 – PFD Cuts Institutionalized 

The POMV framework normalized using Permanent Fund earnings for government operations and turned the statutory PFD into an annual budget bargaining chip. 

2019 – Criminal Justice Reversal Without Repair 

HB 49 rolled back SB 91 under public pressure, but did not solve addiction, homelessness, prosecution gaps, repeat offenders, mental health failures, or reentry problems. 

2020 – COVID Spending Without Lasting Oversight Reform 

CARES Act funds exposed confusion over emergency spending authority, legislative control, audits, and transparency. Alaska spent the money but failed to build better emergency-budget rules. 

2021 – Federal Dependency Deepens 

ARPA money expanded Alaska’s reliance on federal funds, tying more state, local, school, and nonprofit priorities to Washington’s rules and temporary funding streams. 

2022 – Education Industry Capture Continues 

Despite poor student outcomes, the Legislature again treated funding as reform while avoiding competition, school-level autonomy, administrative caps, and parental control. 

2023 – Ranked-Choice Voting Becomes the Shield 

After adoption in 2020 and use in 2022, lawmakers avoided a serious review of voter confusion, ballot exhaustion, party displacement, and whether the system still had public consent. 

2024 – Statehood Erodes Under Federal Control 

Federal restrictions on Alaska land, resources, roads, and energy development continued, while state leaders mostly responded after the damage was done. 

2025 – More Spending, More Control, Less Accountability 

The Legislature pushed education increases without enforceable performance reform, advanced election-law changes under the banner of modernization, drifted toward energy policies that risk higher costs, and again treated the statutory PFD as government’s balancing account. 

2026 – The Pattern Continues 

Public-pension revival efforts, unresolved election reform, reduced PFDs, and continued fiscal avoidance show the same governing pattern: short-term relief, institutional protection, federal dependency, and procedural games instead of structural reform. 

Bottom Line 

The decade’s failure is not that every proposal was malicious. Some were sincere.  

The real problem is worse: Alaska’s political class repeatedly chooses temporary fixes and institutional self-protection over reform, then transfers the future cost to families, taxpayers, children, and grandchildren. Without a governing strategy tied to measurable results, the Legislature will keep doing what it does best: redistributing state money through grants, programs, and favored institutions that then become political constituencies for the same legislators who fund them.  

Alaska’s FY2025 grant system moved roughly $2.7 billion through state agencies to outside entities, nonprofits, local governments, service providers, and advocacy-linked organizations. Some do useful work, but the larger pattern is obvious: public money creates dependency, dependency creates political loyalty, and political loyalty helps incumbents get re-elected.  

That is not reform. It is taxpayer-funded political maintenance. If Alaska wants different results, all state funding must be tied to measurable outcomes, independent audits, sunset reviews, and consequences for failure. Otherwise, the system will continue recycling public money into institutional support for the status quo while families, children, and future taxpayers are left paying the bill.  

Unless we, Alaska voters, realize we are no longer operating in a traditional democratic-republic election process, taxpayer-funded political maintenance will continue as Alaska’s norm, not the exception.  

Since statehood, Alaska’s political system has been steadily reshaped into a progressive governing structure in which public money is used to build and protect political constituencies, ranked-choice voting diffuses accountability, and institutional networks increasingly outweigh clear voter mandates. This is no longer a simple contest of candidates, slogans, or campaign personalities. It is a contest over systems: who controls the money, the rules, the administrative machinery, the nonprofit networks, the unions, the media narrative, and the election structure itself.  

Until conservatives and non-progressives recognize that the battlefield has changed, we will continue treating elections like beauty pageants (Note our current Republican gubernatorial race. Silly, isn’t it?) while the other side treats them like systems engineering. That is why we keep losing ground even when public sentiment is with us. The lesson is blunt: a movement that only campaigns, but does not build durable institutions, cannot defeat a political machine that governs through them. 

1...456...1,801Page 5 of 1,801

About us

Must Read Alaska is news of people, politics, policy, culture, and happenings in Alaska.

Contact
4021 West Hill Road,
Homer, AK 99603

Op-Ed/Article:
[email protected]

Subscription: [email protected]

The latest

Alaska To Be Critical Mineral Accelerator Engine in National Science Foundation’s Nationwide Effort to Secure America’s Tech Dominance

This Just In 0
Today, July 14, the National Science Foundation (NSF) announced...

Analysis: Pro-RCV Group Badgers Repeal Now over Treasurer Located in Wisconsin; Math Shows Repeal Now Uses 6x Less Out-of-State Funds

Politics 0
On July 10, 2026, Alaska Public Media reported on...

Legislature Chooses Inaction During Second Special Session Focused on AK LNG Bill

AK Voices 1

According to the Alaska State Legislature’s official website, there have been no meetings of any committees of the Legislature since July 2, 2026. Governor Mike Dunleavy had called the Legislature into a second special session of this year (the third special session of the 34th Legislature) in order to pass a tax restructuring bill for […]

© Must Read Alaska