Carmela Warfield, the wife of the Alaska Republican Party’s Finance chair, Jason Warfield, has filed her letter of intent with Alaska Public Offices Commission, which is one way of saying she will file for a seat on the Anchorage Assembly. The filing period for the municipal election opens this Friday and the election will be held in mid-March, ending April 4.
Warfield’s candidacy may make it awkward for several major Republican leaders in Anchorage, including Mayor Dave Bronson, Assemblywoman Jamie Allard, Assemblyman Kevin Cross, and Assemblyman Randy Sulte, several legislators and others who have already endorsed Rachel Ries for the South Assembly District 6 seat.
Ries, an Afghanistan war helicopter pilot, has been a declared candidate in the race since May. She won 63% of the precincts in District 6 for her school board race last year.
Carmela is described in her bio as “a longtime Alaskan resident, local business owner and real estate investor. Prior to starting her company, Carmela was an executive with a career in the Banking and Finance industry for more than fifteen years. Carmela and her family are involved and passionate community members, with many years of service and support of Alaskan philanthropic and non-profit organizations. She is current Chair of the Board of Trustees of Special Olympics Alaska, and past Chair of the Board of Directors of Special Olympics Alaska. She is also a two-time Covenant House Alaska Executive Sleep Out champion.”
If past races are any indicator, having two Republicans vying for the South Anchorage Assembly seat now held by a liberal will almost certainly split the vote and hand the election to the incumbent, Democrat Suzanne LaFrance.
Mayor Dave Bronson announced that the former Golden Lion Hotel will be used as a rooming house to provide housing options for low-income residents and those experiencing homelessness in Anchorage.
“As we work together to make sure no one sleeps in the cold, I have directed my team to implement a plan that allows the former Golden Lion Hotel to be used in an efficient manner that helps as many people as possible,” Bronson said. “I am committed to working with community partners and the Anchorage Assembly to quickly bring this resource online.”
The former Golden Lion Hotel, located on the corner of 36th Ave. and the New Seward Highway, was purchased by the prior Administration following the sale of ML&P. The Assembly passed AR 2022-33 requesting the Golden Lion be used as a rooming house, that would serve as a place to house those experiencing homelessness.
The Administration has conducted a site evaluation of the building. Initial cost estimates to bring the building into compliance and suitable for housing, are around $700,000, but could potentially go higher because the fire suppression system is not fully operational.
The Administration is committed to working with the Assembly to identify a funding source to support the project.
The timeline to have the facility open is 4-6 months.
The Assembly of the Municipality of Anchorage will hold a public hearing on legislation at its regular meeting of Jan. 10, 2023. The Assembly holds its meetings at the Loussac Library in the Assembly Chambers at 36th and Denali.
Tonight’s meeting will also be the final meeting for Assemblywoman Jamie Allard, who is leaving to take up a position as representative in the Alaska Legislature. She will likely submit her resignation between now and Jan. 17th, when she is sworn in as a state representative.
Ordinance No. AO 2022-110, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly adopting the public naming panel’s unanimous recommendation to dedicate Tract A, Block 30, Third Addition (Plat 85-41) for permanent or long-term park or recreational purposes, to name the park “Johnny Ellis Rainbow Bridge Park”, to name the 15th Avenue/A Street Bridge “Johnny Ellis Rainbow Bridge”, and to waive the one-time present name use limitation in AMC 3.97.025A7., an ordinance offered by Assembly Vice-Chair Chris Constant and Assembly Members Forrest Dunbar and Daniel Volland.
The “Rainbow Bridge” name does not refer to anything about dogs that “went to heaven,” but instead refers to the fact that former Sen. Johnny Ellis, Democrat leader of the Senate, was gay, although not openly so. He died last year. Already the once-red fishing pole art on the bridge are now painted in different colors of the rainbow.
Constant originally wanted to name the Port of Alaska after Ellis, but has evidently settled for a rainbow bridge.
Ordinance No. AO 2022-116, an ordinance submitting to the qualified voters of the Municipality of Anchorage at the next Regular Election a ballot proposition to amend Anchorage Municipal Charter Section 13.11 to change management authority for the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) Trust Fundfrom the Treasurer to a fiduciary board and establishing primary fiduciary duties and responsibilities associated with board management of the MOA Trust Fund, Department of Law and Finance Department/Treasury Division.
Ordinance No. AO 2022-117, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Sections 2.10.015 and 2.20.060 related to Assembly Offices and Staff, adding new Sections 2.20.045 and 2.20.075 regarding the Assembly Offices and corresponding Organizational Chart, and adjusting the range for Assembly Positions and making conforming amendments in Section 3.30.172, Assembly Chair LaFrance and Assembly Vice-Chair Constant.
Ordinance No. AO 2022-117(S), an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Sections 2.10.015 and 2.20.060 related to Assembly Offices and Staff, adding new Sections 2.20.045 and 2.20.075 regarding the Assembly Offices and corresponding Organizational Chart, and adjusting the range for Assembly Positions and making conforming amendments in Section 3.30.172, Assembly Chair LaFrance and Assembly Vice-Chair Constant.
Ordinance No. AO 2022-118, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly submitting to the qualified voters residing in the Girdwood Valley Service Area (GVSA) at the Regular Election on April 4, 2023, a ballot proposition to add to the GVSA’s existing powers the power to provide services in support of policies that promote local housing and economic stability; and amending Anchorage Municipal Code Sections 27.20.110 and 27.30.020 upon voter approval of the ballot proposition, Assembly Chair LaFrance and Assembly Member Sulte.
Resolution No. AR 2022-400, a resolution adopting recommendations to be forwarded to the Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions (AMATS) Policy Committee regarding an amendment to the FFY 2023-2026 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), Planning Department.
Resolution No. AR 2022-405, a resolution of the Municipality of Anchorage adopting the Municipality of Anchorage Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan.
Resolution No. AR 2022-413, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending the 2023 General Government Capital Improvement Budget to include New Project – Mulcahy Stadium Improvements, Assembly Member Petersen.
Resolution No. AR 2022-414, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending the 2023 General Government Capital Improvement Budget to includeadditional Parks & Recreation Projects, Assembly Vice-Chair Constant.
This ordinance means they’ll be able to tax people more.
The public may participate in person, through written comments, or by phone. There is no sign-up for in-person testimony – the Chair will invite the public to speak on a first come basis during the Assembly Meeting. Don’t sign up to provide phone testimony if you plan to attend in person.
The above-referenced document is available for examination at the Municipal Clerk’s Office, City Hall, 632 W. 6th Avenue, Room 250, Anchorage, Alaska and online by the Friday prior to Regular Assembly Meetings on the Assembly’s Meetings page, http://www.muni.org/Residents/Pages/MuniMeetings.aspx. To find the document, click on the agenda link for the meeting date on which the public hearing will be held.
Forty years ago I was in my political prime. I was a 37-year-old lawyer with a beautiful wife and three fine looking little boys. For services rendered in his 1978 reelection campaign, Gov. Jay Hammond had designed a seat in the State Senate especially for me, and I was ready to start my legislative career.
I had come back to Alaska in 1974 after law school with the intention of taking out Democratic U. S. Sen. Mike Gravel, a liberal and a whack job. But Frank Murkowski beat me to it, so now I had my sights on liberal Republican Sen. Ted Stevens. I couldn’t run against Congressman Don Young because Don was a good conservative and there would be no point to it.
I made no secret of my intentions, and I had my political game plan all worked out. In 1980, was chairman of Reagan for President, Alaska. In 1990, I would run in the Republican Senate primary hard to Stevens’ right, and attack his liberalism as being out of touch with the majority of Alaska’s Reagan Republicans.
A few months after I was sworn in to the State Senate, Justice Jay Rabinowitz handed down his opinion in Carpenter v. Hammond, 667 P. 2d 1204. It threw out Hammond’s 1980 reapportionment, and gave Democratic Gov. Bill Sheffield a free rein in reapportioning the whole state. Sheffield hated my guts, so my career in the State Senate would end in 1984.
To this day legal scholars have a hard time figuring out Carpenter v. Hammond. Legally, it’s nonsensical. But it wasn’t really a legal opinion. It was purely political.
My political momentum was stopped cold. I was never able to regain it, and I never ran against Ted Stevens.
For 40 years, Alaska’s Supreme Court has been faithfully fulfilling the Rabinowitz legacy of left-wing political activism and judicial imperialism. Republican Governors have attempted to appoint conservatives, but have been stymied by the lawyer-dominated Alaska Judicial Council, which refuses to nominate them.
They’re trying it again right now, giving Gov. Mike Dunleavy a list of exclusively leftist activist nominees, all in the mold of Jay Rabinowitz.
But this year there’s a difference. Dunleavy is the first two-term Republican governor in 44 years, so he doesn’t have to worry about reelection. The leftist lawyers and media can hold their breath, roll on the floor, and turn purple, but he doesn’t have to pay any attention. It’s an historic opportunity, which let’s hope he takes advantage of.
He doesn’t have to appoint any of these people. He can just say no.
Fritz Pettyjohn served in the Alaska Legislature in the 1980s and writes the blog ReaganProject.com.
Recently several decisions made by Republicans in the Republican Party, Alaska State Senate and U.S. Congress have led me to this question. Who are we?
As many of you are aware, I have known Craig Campbell for many years and respect him greatly. I just don’t agree on his recent assumption about why we should remove and pause the party censure.
I have served on the Republican State Central Committee since 2003, first as chair of two different districts and since 2008 as president of the Anchorage Republican Women’s Club.
I was out of state for the December meeting and therefore wish to address Craig Campbell’s large assumption in Must Read Alaska, where he stated that since both Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Sen.-elect Kelly Merrick won their seats, and other Republicans lost theirs, the censures passed earlier were ineffective. (The censure against Murkowski had been overwhelmingly approved by the SCC with Craig’s vote in support).
Craig Campbell is respected by many in the party, myself, included. So, when he makes these statements, he has much influence. To say I was shocked would be an understatement. Believing this to be a rather large assumption, I would like to see Craig’s data supporting his statement.
After discussion with some very good data people in and out of Alaska, they would say the censures had very little effect either way. People further stated most of what the SCC does is really only noticed by a small “informed” group of Republicans. They assured me that such a small group would not affect whether Lisa Murkowski or Kelly Merrick won or lost.
As I remember, the camel that broke most everyone’s back in the Republican leadership of the4 party was Lisa Murkowski’s voteto not confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and then voting to impeach Donald Trump, a sitting Republican president.
Then, in the November 2022 election, she endorsed the democrat in the U.S. congressional race. No one believes her censure would have changed that. It seems she just needed those rural votes because of a Democrat in her own race.
Kelly Merrick’s censure came from within her own district, when during last session she joined a coalition with Democrats and left many of her fellow Republicans in the minority.
So, below are my assumptions of why Lisa Murkowski and Kelly Merrick won and why other Republicans may have lost. I have tried to base my assumptions on facts and data when possible.
#1 Ranked Choice Voting
Everyone knows that Sen. Lisa Murkowski was behind the ranked choice voting initiative. She knew there was no way she would make it through a Republican primary again, when for the first time since 2010 she had a strong candidate as an opponent. She knew she couldn’t do another write-in, so why not just change the whole voting system in Alaska? Legislating by petition is rather easy here if you have the money. It didn’t seem to matter to her what affect it might have on other Republican races.
So, with millions of outside dark-money, it passed. This would allow her a way to avoid a Republican primary and get all her Democrat votes to count. Big assumption? I’ll say it has better odds than the theory that being censured caused Republican losses.
#2 Redistricting
Every 10 years we go through redistricting. Once again, the Democrats beat the hell out of the Republican Party in getting people to testify. Yes, we had three Republicans on the board, but they were not always unified on votes. Several of us did everything we could to get people to testify. I alone testified five times. Day after day we sat and heard many Democrats testify about their chosen maps. Republicans usually had around 2-3 people. We thank those district chairs that did help and wonder where the rest were.
With Republicans not united on the Republican House Districts, the Democrat map won. In the Senate pairings, we did somewhat better, but once those pairings were passed out of committee, the Democrats sued. Of course, the Alaska courts sided with the Democrats and their Senate pairings were accepted. This left many of our strong Republican districts at risk for flipping.
It was rather obvious, some Republican candidates joined with the Democrats to win their Senate seats. Is it possible that Kelly Merrick being married to a union boss, and Cathy Giessel holding a fundraiser with Democrat Matt Claman had more to do with their winning with the help of Democrat money than one of them being censured?
#3 Get out the vote
If as was stated by Craig Campbell, this was the largest ever voter turn-out effort by the GOP, then it failed. This election was the lowest voter turnout ever in the state.
Maybe the Party needs to take a closer look at its efforts and analyze why it didn’t work. Exactly what efforts were made by the party on behalf of Senate Candidate Kelly Tshibaka? Could it be the dismal losses of the past six years under the current RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel? When she was elected, Republicans held the presidency, Senate and House. The results in the November election tell me we need to look at a new direction for our party.
#4 Outside Money
Conservative Republican candidates who lost were fighting huge amounts of outside money. In the Alaska Senate race, Kelly Tshibaka had $9 million spent against her by Senate Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Senate leadership to ensure Sen. Lisa Murkowski won. His commercials against Tshibaka were relentless, and some of the dirtiest anyone has ever heard.
I wonder what would have happened had he spent $9 million to defeat Lisa Murkowski? Are we to believe actions like this do not make the average conservative voter disgusted with the party and maybe not show up to polls?
Many of us are proud of Kelly Tshibaka’s percentage of votes after millions were spent to defeat her. I have heard some say we lost money when we censured Murkowski. Exactly what money are they talking about? Puppet money?
In some of our state races the same was happening. Sen. Mia Costello had millions of outside monies spent against her to elect Democrat Matt Claman.
A large LGBT outside group sent funds to four LGBT candidates in Alaska, and three of them won. I am sure other national Democrat money was being put in many of our races to ensure Republican lost.
Since the censure “removal” several more disturbing things have happened in our party both in AK and nationally.
11 Republicans were elected to the AK Senate. That formed a Republican majority but instead eight of those 11 decided they didn’t really like conservative Republicans and instead formed with Democrats for a Democrat led coalition, with the most powerful committee chairs being held mostly by Democrats.
Recently Congress had 12 Republican senators, and a whopping 39 Republican congressmen, vote for the so-called Respect for Marriage Act. It was legislation not really needed, but pushed by the LGBT movement. This now puts all religious groups at risk for lengthy lawsuits. Both of our US Senators voted for it.
The US Senate, including 18 Republicans, just voted for the $1.7 trillion omnibus bill, one of which we just re-elected.
In closing, this leads me back to my original question in the headline: “Who are we?” Many of us believe we are our party platform. Is it wrong to expect the same from those we elect? Is not a censure letting an elected official know we don’t like their actions against our platform? Is it not a way to hold them accountable?
We, as a party, spend many hours writing our platform at state conventions. Should we not ask candidates to read and support them after the convention?
I am one that believes we stand for something, or we stand for nothing at all. Did many of our voters just stay home on Election Day because they don’t see Republicans standing for anything? Are we just words but not action? These would be my assumptions. I hope I have convinced you my assumptions are worth considering.
Judy Eledge is the chair of the Anchorage Republican Women’s Club and a longtime activist in the Republican Party of Alaska.
After three days and no action, the Anchorage Municipal Clerk has posted on YouTube the Anchorage Assembly’s interviews with the five candidates for the vacancy created by former Assemblyman Forrest Dunbar, who has gone on to become a state senator. The Clerk, who works for the Assembly, is supposed to make all meetings open to the public, even those who cannot attend them in person, by posting videos of the meetings on YouTube.
On Friday, the Assembly said the interviews would be posted, and yet they were not, leading Must Read Alaska readers to wonder why, over the weekend, they could not access those interviews, but instead could only access the final Friday vote that put Assemblyman Joey Sweet into office until April 25. The situation has since been rectified.
Alaska Congresswoman Mary Peltola voted against the Family and Small Business Taxpayer Protection Act, repealing $80 billion of a funding expansion of the Internal Revenue Service that was passed last year, including the expected addition of 87,000 new IRS agents.
The bill passed on a party-line vote, 221-210, with Republicans carrying the yeas. The bill was one of the top promises that Republicans made as they took over control of the House of Representatives this month — to rescind the funding for more IRS agents that was part of Democrats’ massive Inflation Reduction Act. The Family and Small Business Taxpayer Protection Act was the first piece of legislation passed under the new GOP House leadership.
The IRS reports that it has about 79,000 employees. The $80 billion in funding would more than double the current payroll for the IRS.
The bill is expected to die in committee in the Democrat-controlled Senate.
The House also plans to vote on another bill, the Fair Tax Act, to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, eliminate the national income tax, and replace the current income tax structure with a national sales tax, or consumption tax. That bill is being reintroduced by Georgia Republican Rep. Buddy Carter.
Months of investigation of classified documents at former President Donald Trump’s residence in Mar-a-Lago has the matter still unresolved and tangled in court, where legal motions are made weekly in what has become a criminal probe by the Justice Department.
Now there’s a new twist: Classified documents from the Obama White House were found in a private office of President Joe Biden’s Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement, where Biden kept office hours as part of his honorary professorship with the University of Pennsylvania between 2017 and 2019.
According to mainstream media reports, Biden’s attorneys have acknowledged the existence of the classified documents and said they came across them while they were closing out his office in at the foundation. They reported the files to the National Archives in November. The news of the files was first reported by CBS on Monday, but has been picked up by other news organizations, although none has described the contents of the files, nor provided much detail.
The Department of Justice is investigating Trump for his handling of classified information, although Trump claimed that presidents can declassify documents at will.
No such declassification authority is granted to vice presidents, however, unless they are acting in the performance of executive duties, which will put the Justice Department lawyers in an awkward spot with the sitting president, who had no such executive authorities under President Obama. It’s unclear how Biden came to possess the documents or how he may have removed them from federal property.
Mainstream media has ignored that difference and instead has focused on how the number of classified documents in Biden’s closet were relatively small compared to the amount that were stored at Mar-a-Lago.
An Anchorage Superior Court judge issued his ruling Monday that says the election of Rep.-elect Jennie Armstrong will stand, and that she was indeed qualified enough to run for office in West Anchorage House District 16 when she filed earlier this year.
With just a week before legislators are sworn into office, Judge Herman Walker issued the ruling against challengers of Armstrong, who said she had not moved into the district in time to be a qualified candidate.
The case had been brought by opposing candidate Liz Vazquez, as well as Chris Duke, Randy Eledge, Steve Strait and Kathryn Werdahl, all residents of the district. They said that Armstrong’s victory was unlawfully certified by the Division of Elections, but the judge disagreed, and said that Armstrong may be sworn into office on Jan. 17.
Armstrong had made the decision to move to Alaska on May 20, 2019, although it’s unclear that she had actually done so since she came and left the state during that timeframe. The judge appears to take her word for it, while much evidence suggests she still considered herself a visitor, since she applied for a non-resident fishing license later that summer. In other parts of her testimony, she says she was a resident since May 1, 2019. Alaska has a three-year residency requirement, which would mean she would have been a resident by about 10 days or up to a month before she would not have qualified for office for that year.
Judge Walker heard the case on Dec. 22. It took him nearly three weeks to issue his ruling because, evidently, he left the country for the holidays. The case will likely be appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court.
