Must Read Alaska invites you to stop into the downtown New Sagaya City Market on Thursday, September 24 to say hello to MRAK leaders, ask us questions, and share feedback and/or story ideas. We have a special gift for anyone who comes!
We are planning three MRAK in the Community events this year in three locations: Anchorage, Mat-Su, and Kenai. More information on the Mat-Su and Kenai events will follow. Next year, we are hoping to get out to Fairbanks, Juneau, Bethel, and others. If you are in Anchorage September 24 and have the time, we would love to see you!
Where: The downtown New Sagaya City Market (900 W 13th Ave, Anchorage, AK, 99501) When: Thursday, September 24, 1:00 PM – 3:00 PM Who: MRAK leaders Todd Lindley and Natalie Spaulding will be there to chat, answer questions, and take feedback!
Come chat with us!
About Must Read Alaska
Must Read Alaska is a conservative media outlet providing Alaskans honest, quality news and commentary from a conservative perspective. Our core news areas include Alaska industry, energy, law and justice, politics, and culture. MRAK’s AK Voices section promotes authentic Alaskan conservative voices. MRAK also stands firm on Biblical values, writing about the Christian faith and the faithful in our Faith Watch section.
Must Read Alaska is published by Alaska Gold Communications, Inc. (AGCI), a small Alaska business dedicated to the preservation and promotion of conservative media in Alaska.
About Todd Lindley
As Vice President of AGCI, Todd M. Lindley provides direct support and oversight for Must Read Alaska’s operations, community and business partnerships, software development, and brand vision. Todd also writes on Alaskan politics and industry. He has spent nearly two decades in the oil & gas industry as a mechanical engineer for ExxonMobil and Alyeska Pipeline. He and his family now live in Anchorage, AK.
About Natalie Spaulding
Natalie Spaulding serves as Must Read Alaska’s Director of Operations and Communications. She manages MRAK’s day-to-day editorial work, publishing schedule, and communications. She also writes on the full range of MRAK topics. A 2025 Hillsdale College graduate, she previously did editorial work at the Family Research Council on the book “Life After Roe“ by David Closson and research for the Charlotte Lozier Institute. She lives in Anchorage, AK.
About New Sagaya City Market
The New Sagaya City Market is a one-stop shop for a coffee and pastry, a freshly prepared meal, or essential groceries. Offering a large dining space, New Sagaya City Market is a common gathering place for Anchorage locals. Open 7 am to 9 pm Monday thru Saturday and 7am to 8 pm on Sunday.
U.S. Representative Nick J. Begich (R-Alaska) has set the record for the most sponsored bills passed by the House of any freshman member of Congress. A total of 14 bills penned by Rep. Begich have passed the U.S. House with six of those also passing the Senate and receiving the President’s signature, becoming law. Rep. Begich’s work largely focuses on Alaska Native land rights, energy, resource development, and military readiness. Here is a look at each of the 14 bills and what they do for Alaskans.
H.R. 2815 — Cape Fox Land Entitlement Finalization Act of 2025
Introduced by Rep. Begich on April 10, 2025, H.R. 2815 waives a statutory core township selection requirement for the Cape Fox Corporation— the Alaska Native village corporation for Saxman, Alaska— and allows Cape Fox to select lands outside its immediate township to fulfill its remaining land entitlement. The bill includes a selection by Cape Fox of approximately 180 acres of surface land within the Tongass National Forest. It directs the Department of the Interior to convey the selected federal land to Cape Fox as well as convey the subsurface estate of the federal land to Sealaska Corporation (the Alaska Native regional corporation representing southeastern Alaska).
H.R. 410 — Alaska Native Vietnam Era Veterans Land Allotment Extension Act of 2025
Introduced by Rep. Begich on January 15, 2025, H.R. 410 extends the Alaska Native Vietnam Era Veterans Land Allotment Program. Eligible Alaska Native veterans who served in the Armed Forces during the Vietnam era, or their heirs, may apply for up to 160 acres of federal land in Alaska. The bill changes the application window from a 5-year period to a 10-year period, extending the deadline from December 29, 2025, to December 29, 2030.
H.R. 43 — Alaska Native Village Municipal Lands Restoration Act of 2025
Introduced by Rep. Begich on January 3, 2025, H.R. 43 amends the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act so village corporations are no longer required to reconvey land to the State of Alaska to be held in trust for future municipal governments. The change is intended to end a long-standing reconveyance mandate and leave those lands under village corporation control for local use and development.
Introduced by Rep. Begich on January 3, 2025, H.R. 42 provides that settlement trust payments to an Alaska Native who is elderly, blind, or disabled are not counted as income when determining eligibility for certain needs-based federal assistance programs, including SNAP. The bill aligns those trust payments with the treatment of other Alaska Native Corporation benefits.
H.J.Res. 131 — Congressional disapproval of the BLM Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision
Introduced by Rep. Begich on October 10, 2025, H.J.Res. 131 provides for congressional disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code) of the Bureau of Land Management rule relating to the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision. The resolution disapproves the BLM decision that restricted oil and gas leasing on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
H.J.Res. 106 — Congressional disapproval of the BLM Central Yukon Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan
Introduced by Rep. Begich on July 14, 2025, H.J.Res. 106 provides for congressional disapproval under the Congressional Review Act of the Bureau of Land Management rule relating to the “Central Yukon Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan.” The resolution disapproves that Interior plan for a large area of Interior Alaska public land.
Introduced by Rep. Begich on November 12, 2025, H.R. 6021 clarifies the treatment of authentic Alaska Native articles of handicraft, clothing, or art that contain nonedible migratory bird parts under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. It provides that the MBTA does not prohibit possessing, selling, bartering, purchasing, shipping, or transporting such authentic articles so long as the bird was not taken in a wasteful or illegal manner, and it directs work with treaty partners to clarify that treatment.
Introduced by Rep. Begich on December 4, 2025, H.R. 6427 amends title 49, United States Code, to permit the use of State highway standards for airfield pavement construction and improvement at certain nonprimary airports that serve aircraft not exceeding 60,000 pounds gross weight, when the State gives notice and the FAA determines the standards will not negatively affect safety.
H.R. 5131 — Public Lands Military Readiness Act of 2025
Introduced by Rep. Begich on September 4, 2025, H.R. 5131 extends military land withdrawals in Alaska, New Mexico, and California for 25 years and makes technical corrections to descriptions of certain withdrawals. It extends the withdrawal and reservation of the Yukon Training Area, Donnelly Training Area East and West in Alaska, and McGregor Range at Fort Bliss, New Mexico, until November 6, 2051, and extends Fort Irwin land in California until December 31, 2051.
H.R. 3903 — Chugach Alaska Land Exchange Oil Spill Recovery Act of 2025
Introduced by Rep. Begich on June 11, 2025, H.R. 3903 authorizes, directs, and expedites a land exchange between Chugach Alaska Corporation and the United States. If Chugach offers to convey approximately 231,000 acres of subsurface estate, Interior is to accept that offer and convey approximately 65,374 acres of fee-simple federal land in the Chugach region, consolidating ownership related to oil-spill recovery program lands.
H.R. 3620 — Southcentral Foundation Land Transfer Act of 2025
Introduced by Rep. Begich on May 29, 2025, H.R. 3620 directs the conveyance of approximately 3.372 acres in Anchorage (Lot 1A, Block 36 East Addition, Anchorage Townsite Subdivision) to the Southcentral Foundation for use in connection with health and social services programs. The conveyance is to be by warranty deed, without consideration from the Foundation, without conditions imposed on the property, and without a U.S. reversionary interest.
H.R. 3176 — National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System reauthorization
Introduced by Rep. Begich on May 5, 2025, H.R. 3176 amends the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act to reauthorize the National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System, updating the authorization period (including USGS-related funding years 2026 through 2029 in the House-passed text).
The House passed the bill; the Senate received it on December 16, 2025, read it twice, and referred it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The full text can be found here: Text – H.R.3176 – 119th Congress (2025-2026) | Congress.gov
H.R. 1368 — DOE and NASA Interagency Research Coordination Act
Introduced by Rep. Begich on February 14, 2025, H.R. 1368 authorizes the Department of Energy and NASA to carry out cross-cutting collaborative research and development supporting both agencies’ missions, including areas such as nuclear propulsion and power, modeling and data systems, and shared research infrastructure, and requires a joint report to Congress.
Introduced by Rep. Begich on January 3, 2025, H.R. 41 addresses the omission of five Southeast Alaska Native communities—Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell—from eligibility under ANCSA. It authorizes Alaska Native residents of those communities to organize as Alaska Native urban corporations, receive specified settlement land, and have the subsurface estate conveyed to Sealaska, and it allows each urban corporation to establish a settlement trust.
By James Parkin, 2026 write-in candidate for Governor
When I launched my grassroots write-in campaign for Governor of Alaska alongside my running mate, Ramadanhi “Ram” Greer, I knew the road ahead would be an uphill battle. I am a working Alaskan and a disabled veteran. I don’t have a super PAC backing me, I haven’t taken time off work to court wealthy campaign donors, and I certainly don’t have deep-pocketed special interests lining up to fund my run.
What I do have is a deep-seated belief that democracy belongs to the people, not to the highest bidder. But last week, that belief hit the harsh wall of state bureaucracy.
Despite submitting every required form and paying every necessary fee on time, Ram and I discovered that our names, photos, and candidate profiles had been completely scrubbed from the official Alaska State Voter Pamphlet. When we pressed the Division of Elections for an explanation, the official rationale was simple: because I am running as a write-in candidate and did not place in the top four during the primary, we were cut.
Here is the problem: according to my understanding, there is no state statute or official application language that justifies this exclusion. The voter pamphlet was created to be an equal-access resource for every Alaskan—a tool to help voters educate themselves on all available choices before stepping into the polling booth. Instead, administrative overreach has transformed it into another gatekeeping tool designed to protect the status quo. When we asked the state to correct this oversight, the response essentially amounted to a dismissive sigh—it was simply too much trouble for them to fix.
This isn’t just about my campaign. It is about whether a working-class Alaskan can still participate in our political process on an equal playing field.
Look at the numbers from our primary election. My campaign spent a total of $600 on advertising—money raised almost entirely in small increments from fellow working Alaskans who offered what little extra they had. With those modest resources, we earned 638 votes. Meanwhile, the top vote-getter in the primary, Jonathon Kreiss-Tomkins, burned through a staggering $1.3 million.
If my campaign had access to a million-dollar chest, we could have competed on par with the front-runners. But our current system doesn’t measure the quality of a candidate’s ideas or their genuine connection to the community; it measures bank balances. The primary process has devolved into a wealth contest where money buys name recognition, and name recognition buys votes. Is there a worse metric for choosing the leader of our state?
This financial gatekeeping has silenced our platform at every turn. Because our campaign operates on a shoestring budget, we have been repeatedly locked out of public candidate forums. Perhaps the most painful moment of this campaign occurred when I—a disabled veteran who served this country with pride—was denied a seat at a veterans’ forum simply because my campaign didn’t meet arbitrary fundraising benchmarks.
Primary turnout in Alaska historically struggles to break 20 to 30 percent. Using a low-turnout primary as a strict filter to silence alternative voices before the general election ensures that voters never get to hear a truly broad spectrum of ideas. When the state suppresses candidates who lack corporate backing, it reduces our vibrant democracy to a closed-door country club.
When election officials scrub grassroots candidates from the state’s official informational guide, they are not just hurting the candidates— they are failing to inform voters of all their options. Alaskans deserve the right to read about every qualified individual on the ballot, not just those who can afford massive ad buys.
We cannot allow political participation in Alaska to be reserved solely for the wealthy elite or those funded by outside special interests seeking control over our state’s natural resources. We need to preserve the fundamental possibility that a regular, working-class Alaskan—someone who understands the daily struggles of paying bills and working a full-time job—can run for public office and be heard.
Because of this, I refuse to quietly accept this exclusion. I am preparing to take legal action against the state to defend candidate equity and protect voter rights.
However, running a true grassroots campaign means I face the same limitations in court that I do on the trail: I cannot afford the costly legal retainers required to mount a high-profile challenge against state agencies.
I am issuing a direct appeal to Alaska’s legal community. I am searching for an attorney or legal team willing to take on this case pro bono or under alternative arrangements. This fight is bigger than JP4 and Ram Greer—it is a fight for the integrity of Alaska’s election system and the constitutional rights of every voter in our state.
If you are an attorney willing to stand up for election fairness, or an Alaskan who believes in equal access on the ballot, I urge you to reach out. Our argument is not that every write-in candidate should be added to the State’s voter pamphlet. Our argument is that candidates who already had a spot in the pamphlet and are continuing as write-ins after the primary should not be removed. Only the top four vote-getters in the primary get to appear on the general election ballot, but nothing in statute says candidates not in the top four will be removed from the voter pamphlet.
James “JP4” Parkin is a disabled veteran, working Alaskan, and grassroots write-in candidate for Governor of Alaska. Campaign contact: Phone: 1-907-617-1954 Email: [email protected] Web: jp4gov.org
Must Read Alaska unequivocally supports the election of a conservative to the Office of Governor but does not endorse a particular gubernatorial candidate. MRAK encourages voters to rank all three Republicans in their preferred order.
This article was first published on the author’s personal Substack, September 13, 2026, under the title “Seven Instructions. Two in Bold. Zero Warnings.”
I pulled up my own sample ballot this week. House District 30.
There are seven instructions at the top.
Do not use red ink or a pencil to mark your ballot.
Rank as many or few candidates as you like.
Completely fill in no more than one oval for each candidate or column.
For your 1st choice, fill in the oval in the first choice column.
For your 2nd choice, fill in the oval in the 2nd choice column.
For your 3rd choice, fill in the oval in the 3rd choice column, and so on.
If you make a mistake, you can ask for a new ballot.
That is all of it.
Seven instructions and not one tells you how your vote dies.
Then there is the Division of Elections website, which has a section called “What are mistakes to avoid?” It has four examples with pictures.
Skip one ranking and your next ranking moves up.
Skip two in a row and everything after the skip is dead.
Give two candidates the same number and that ranking and every one after it is thrown out.
Rank the same candidate twice and it still only counts once.
Four ways to wreck a ballot. The state knows all of them. It drew pictures.
But NONE of that is on the ballot.
That website will not be in the booth with you. Neither will the video or the rack card. You get a pen, a piece of paper, and seven bullets telling you what you may do and never what it costs.
The bullet about mistakes says ask for a new ballot. That fixes a stray mark. It does not fix stopping too soon, because you will never know you did it. Nobody hands you a new ballot for that. You find out in a tabulation room in Juneau in late November, if you find out at all.
But here is the line that bothers me.
The Division asks the question half of Alaska is asking right now. “What happens if I only vote for one candidate?”
The answer: your vote is counted in round one and your vote stays with your candidate throughout tabulation.
True. But it leaves out the part that really matters.
It does not say that when your candidate is knocked out, your ballot quits counting in every round after. It does not say your ballot dies or gets knocked out with your candidate, And it does not say exhausted or inactive. Search that page for either word. They are not there.
Those words live in the tabulation reports, published after the election, when it is too late to help you.
Two sentences on the Division page are in bold.
You do not have to rank all the candidates.
If you make a mistake, you can ask for a new ballot.
That is it. Those two.
Both say “Relax. You do not have to do this. If you get it wrong, we will fix it.”
But here is what they don’t say; what is not in bold.
Ranking more candidates keeps you in the game after your favorite loses. Plain text. That’s the whole reason proponents wanted ranked choice voting in the first place, and it gets no emphasis at all? Really?
All four mistakes and all four pictures. Plain text. Zero consequences.
And the sentence sitting right under the bolded one, that your second choice is only counted if your first choice is eliminated. That’s the whole ballgame, and it is plain text.
The two lines they emphasized both tell you to do less.
The Division cannot tell you to fill in more ovals. That would be the state coaching your ballot and they are right to refuse. So they write neutral. Neutral comes out sounding like permission, or even encouragement.
We built a voting system that needs a warning label the state is not allowed to print.
Every other ballot in America handles this. Overvote warnings. Stray mark warnings. Notices that a bad mark will not count. Those work because the mistake is mechanical and the state can name it without taking a side.
Under ranked choice voting, the mistake that kills your vote is your decision about how far down the page to keep writing. So the state goes quiet and you are on your own.
Nobody is cheating. It is a design problem. Under the old system one oval was one vote for one person and there was nothing to warn anybody about. That is a good reason to vote YES on Ballot Measure 2.
But Measure 2 does not change the ballot in your hand this November. These are the rules you have.
Rank straight down. One, two, three. No gaps. Never give two candidates the same number. Never skip two rows in a row. Do not stop after one name unless you are fine having no say in who wins.
Look at my ballot. District 30 has two Republicans and one Democrat. Senate District O has two Republicans and one Democrat. Governor has three Republicans and one Democrat.
Same trap, three times, on one piece of paper.
The state will not warn you. So I am. Ranking all candidates is an insurance policy against your worst candidate. Your worst nightmare. You don’t have to agree with the system to use it. Use their own weapon against them.
Seven instructions. Four ways to ruin a ballot. Never on the same piece of paper. The state instructions fail.
PS. Beat them at their own game then vote Yes to end the Mess. Vote YES on Ballot measure 2!
Must Read Alaska unequivocally supports the election of a conservative to the Office of Governor but does not endorse a particular gubernatorial candidate. MRAK encourages voters to rank all three Republicans in their preferred order.
On September 16, 2026, the Senate Environment & Public Works (EPW) Committee passed the Cold Weather Diesel Reliability Act introduced by Senators Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) and Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming). The legislation directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to update its regulations to prevent the automatic shutdowns (or ‘derates’) caused by cold-related emissions faults, and to provide year-round exemptions from DEF system requirements for vehicles and equipment that operate primarily in cold weather climates. The committee’s passing of the legislation follows the presidential pardon of Wasilla diesel mechanic MacKenzie “Mac” Spurlock on July 3 of this year.
Mac Spurlock had been charged with criminal tampering after he removed air-pollution controls on vehicles with diesel engines. Sen. Sullivan wrote a letter to the President, requesting Spurlock’s pardon because his actions were a matter of “safety and survival.”
Under current EPA regulations, diesel trucks and heavy equipment are required to use emissions systems that can trigger engine shutdowns if the system detects a fault. In cold weather, these emissions components—including but not limited to diesel exhaust fluid (DEF)—often struggle to reach or maintain proper operating temperatures, causing the system to register faults even when the engine itself is running normally. These systems have created life-threatening situations for truckers, including one trucker whose vehicle shut down in a blizzard on the Dalton Highway, a 400-mile stretch of road leading to Prudhoe Bay with only one gas station.
“When a truck or piece of heavy equipment is forced by EPA mandates to shut down in extreme cold because of a faulty sensor not made for the cold, it’s not just an inconvenience—it can quickly become a life-threatening situation,” said Sen. Sullivan. “For too long, the men and women who keep Alaska moving have been forced to contend with one-size-fits-all EPA diesel mandates that simply don’t work in our state. I want to thank my committee colleagues today for joining me in taking an important step toward fixing this issue once and for all. The Cold Weather Diesel Reliability Act will bring common sense to EPA rules and ensure that trucks and heavy equipment can continue operating safely and reliably in the nation’s coldest regions.”
Listen to Sen. Sullivan’s comments to the committee here:
U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), a member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, today celebrated the committee’s passage of his Bycatch Reduction Act, comprehensive legislation to reduce bycatch, protect seafloor habitat, and strengthen transparency and accountability in federal fisheries management.
Several fish and crustacean species that spend all or part of their life in the marine environment have been experiencing increased variability in their productivity and abundance. The Bycatch Reduction Act builds on recommendations identified by the Alaska Salmon Task Force, which sought to disentangle environmental and human-caused factors that may be contributing to species declines and survivability, including bycatch in the marine environment. The task force was originally convened as a result of legislation authored by Sen. Sullivan, which was signed into law in December 2022.
“Today is an exciting day for the countless Alaskans—from subsistence harvesters to commercial and recreational fishermen, residents of coastal communities to upriver villages—who’ve rightfully demanded action to reduce mid-water and bottom trawl bycatch and gear contact with the seafloor to better protect our fisheries,” said Sen. Sullivan. “My Senate Commerce Committee colleagues and I passed my legislation that takes a comprehensive approach to these concerns: setting clear standards and strict enforcement measures, improving monitoring, increasing transparency, and helping test and deploy new gear and equipment that reduce bycatch and habitat disturbances. Each of these priorities came from conversations with and input from hundreds of Alaskans, and I can’t thank them enough for their ideas and support. Now, this legislation moves to the Senate floor, taking an important step toward safeguarding the long-term sustainability of the fishery resources so many Alaskans rely upon.”
Sen. Sullivan’s Bycatch Reduction Act creates a robust toolkit to reduce bycatch and seafloor habitat impacts from mid-water and bottom trawl fishing vessels and strengthen reporting transparency and accountability. These tools include establishing clear standards and monitoring requirements to ensure trawl nets remain off the seafloor; mandating proven salmon excluder devices; investing in salmon tagging, faster genetic sampling, and ecosystem analyses; creating a new flume tank testing facility that simulates real ocean conditions to evaluate new gear and tools; and reauthorizing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program (BREP). Finally, the Bycatch Reduction Act would provide the public with greater access to participate in the North Pacific Fishery Management Council regulatory process and NOAA data monitoring.
Press release provided by the Office of U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan.
This article was first published in “Seward’s Folly,” the author’s personal Substack, September 12, 2026.
Bernadette Wilson is running a very unusual political campaign. She is practically invisible, making few public appearances, refusing to answer most candidate questionnaires, and has not participated in debates with the other candidates for governor. Her most recent absence was in the public debate hosted by the Last Frontier Republican Club on Tuesday. The other three candidates participated; Wilson did not. You have to wonder what her strategy is and who is advising her. It is almost like she is running a “Where’s Waldo” political campaign.
In the run-up to the primary, she may have had a good reason to campaign this way. Twelve Republicans were running, and Wilson led every poll leading up to election day. Everyone knew the number of candidates would fragment the Republican vote, and as long as she led the polls, she did not need to risk a political mistake that could cost her votes. That campaign strategy worked out for her. She received more votes than any other Republican and is on the General Election ballot in November.
However, the 10% of the votes she got in the primary is not enough to be elected governor. The general election is a different ballgame, and the rope-a-dope strategy will not work now. There are only four candidates left in the race, and Wilson has been the least visible of them all. Since the August 18 primary, the only appearance she has made with the other candidates was at a September 9th fisheries forum in Kodiak that was not widely covered in the media. No matter how she did in that forum, few people saw her statewide.
Her first opportunity to participate in a debate with broader coverage was the debate last Tuesday, which is still available online. By not appearing, the other three candidates got airtime, but she missed out. Every Republican is going to have to convince the voters to be their first choice, and if not, to also be included when they rank the candidates on their RCV ballot. If voters get the impression that Wilson is ignoring them, or that she believes she already has the election in the bag, it may alienate them against her.
Wilson should not have anything to fear from a public debate. She has taken positions on the issues that should resonate with conservatives. She is pro-development, she is pro-life, and she believes we should reduce the size of government. All of these are positions that poll well in this state, but there is one unanswered question remaining about her: is she a strong leader who is ready for the job?
Alaska has a very contentious political environment, with a powerful legislature that runs roughshod over weak governors. Not to mention the small group of influential liberal elites that would love nothing more than to tie up the new governor in a recall election if they try to act like a conservative. Just ask outgoing Governor Mike Dunleavy how that worked out.
The next governor will have to lead the state through the negotiations to get the gas line built and try to find balance in the state’s budget without stealing more of the annual PFD from voters. This is going to take a strong, experienced leader able to work with the legislature. The other three candidates in this race have a record of political experience. Two have worked in Juneau; one led our state’s largest city. Voters want to see Wilson prove that she can do the job despite her lack of experience. She can do that by getting on stage and competing in the arena of ideas with the other candidates.
If I were her campaign manager, I would have Wilson participate in every candidate forum or debate. In addition, she should flood the media. She should answer every candidate questionnaire from every conservative news source. I would have Wilson do one-on-one interviews with Joel Davidson at the Alaska Watchman, and Natalie Spaulding with Must Read Alaska. Next, she should get on every local radio show that will give her five minutes of airtime. Finally, she should try to get an appearance on Steve Bannon’s nationally syndicated podcast. If Wilson wants to win this race, she should run as the biggest MAGA candidate out there, and there would be no better place to get national coverage than Bannon’s show.
Wilson needs to show that she wants this job and is strong enough to do it well. Otherwise, we will have to conclude that she is just another pretty face trying to advance her fortunes by running for governor. Alaska tried that once before with Sarah Palin. It did not work out very well for us. Bernadette Wilson needs to prove she is worthy of the office and had better do it fast.
Must Read Alaska reached out to Bernadette Wilson’s campaign manager for comment on why she did not attend the Last Frontier Republican Club debate and did not receive a response.
Must Read Alaska unequivocally supports the election of a conservative to the Office of Governor but does not endorse a particular gubernatorial candidate. MRAK encourages voters to rank all three Republicans in their preferred order.
By Wyatt Young Nelson with an introduction by Natalie Spaulding
Introduction
In 2020 and 2024, well-funded lobbyists tried to take Alaska’s ranked-choice voting and jungle primary model on the road, spreading it across the nation. Measure after measure were sold under false promises. In this collection of essays, Wyatt Young Nelson presents nine states who took RCV and jungle primaries to the mat— and rejected them at the ballot box. Each state’s battle was unique, and the collection provides interesting insight into how other states handled ballot measures proposing RCV and jungle primaries.
Must Read Alaska joins Wyatt Young Nelson in saying thank you to the Americans who helped their states defeat the system that has wreaked havoc on Alaska’s elections. This November, Alaskan have an opportunity to repeal RCV, jungle primaries, and certain campaign disclosure rules by voting yes on ballot measure 2.
Back in 2024, there was a political battle in Idaho over the implementation of ranked-choice voting (RCV). The pro-RCV lobby pushed this controversial system through a ballot proposition known as Prop 1. Calling themselves Idahoans for Open Primaries, the Yes on Prop 1 campaign was financially backed by out-of-state PACs such as Unite America PAC, Unite America Reform Fund, Article IV Group, and Way Back PAC. These groups are essentially connected and were the same forces behind the push for ranked-choice voting in Alaska.
The campaign pitched Prop 1 as a way to open primaries to all voters, allowing them to vote for any candidate for office. Instead, Prop 1 aimed to replace the traditional primary system with a top-four jungle primary and implement ranked-choice voting in the general election for state and federal offices—a Trojan horse in disguise. Attorney General Labrador argued that the ballot language was misleading, but courts dismissed the case, citing procedural reasons. Prop 1 was allowed onto the ballot.
Prop 1’s ballot language was largely copied from Alaska’s ranked-choice voting law. The proposed bill was 18 pages long and confusing for voters, forcing a complex system on Idahoans. The Idahoans for Open Primaries group, supported by wealthy out-of-state pro-RCV donors, spent approximately $5.5 million trying to convince Idaho voters to adopt this unfair and confusing system that could disenfranchise them.
Fortunately, brave Idahoans organized opposition groups such as One Person One Vote, Secure Idaho Elections, and No Ranked Choice Voting Idaho. Together, they formed the No on Prop 1 campaign. Many learned from Alaska’s experience with ranked-choice voting and used it as a warning to prevent Idaho from adopting the same flawed system. They urged friends, neighbors, and families to vote no on Prop 1 to avoid the pitfalls Alaska has suffered under RCV.
On election night, Proposition 1 was decisively defeated. The No votes numbered 618,751 (69.62%), while Yes votes were only 269,959 (30.38%). As an Alaskan, I thank the great state of Idaho and the courageous men and women who united to reject ranked-choice voting. Their victory proves the will of the people to stand strong against the powerful pro-RCV lobby.
Arizona
Not too long ago, in 2024, a political battle unfolded in Arizona over the implementation of ranked-choice voting (RCV). The pro-RCV lobby pushed this controversial system through a ballot proposal known as Proposition 140. They presented the measure as a way to open primaries and give voters better access to choose whoever they want for office. However, the true contents of Prop 140 were hidden.
In reality, Prop 140 aimed to replace the traditional voting system with a top-four jungle primary and use ranked-choice voting in the general election. The pro-RCV lobby organized a campaign called Make Elections Fair PAC, supported by out-of-state groups like Unite America PAC from Denver, Colorado, and Open Primaries Now Inc. from New York City. These groups, backed by millionaire and billionaire donors, spent approximately $15.5 million trying to force Prop 140 onto Arizona, pushing what many viewed as a broken and unproven experiment.
The same forces behind the push for ranked-choice voting in Alaska funded the Yes on Prop 140 campaign. The proposition was modeled closely after Alaska’s RCV law, making it nearly identical.
Meanwhile, brave Arizonans from diverse political backgrounds—including from the Arizona GOP, Arizona Democratic Party, Green Party, and Libertarian Party—all joined forces to oppose Prop 140. They formed the No on Prop 140 campaign, dedicated to protecting election integrity. Co-chaired by Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb and former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew W. Gould, the campaign warned voters about the pitfalls of ranked-choice voting, sharing Alaska’s experience as a cautionary tale.
Even former Arizona Governor Doug Ducey expressed concerns about Proposition 140, highlighting how flawed the measure was and warning it would create unfairness, disenfranchise voters, and burden taxpayers with higher costs. He encouraged voters to reject the proposal.
On election day, Proposition 140 was defeated decisively. The No votes totaled 1,823,445 (58.68%), while Yes votes were 1,284,176 (41.32%).
As an Alaskan, I am grateful to the great State of Arizona and the courageous men and women who stood against the powerful pro-RCV lobby. Their victory proves that the people have the will to defend fair elections and reject ranked-choice voting.
Missouri
In 2024, political battles over ranked-choice voting (RCV) spread across the United States. However, the State of Missouri took a different approach. Instead of a ballot measure to implement RCV, Missouri voters faced a constitutional initiative known as Amendment 7. This amendment aimed to ban ranked-choice voting from ever being used in state, local, and federal elections.
Amendment 7 was a positive development. People had learned from Alaska’s experience with ranked-choice voting and warned other states against adopting it. Missouri listened and acted to protect traditional elections by banning RCV outright.
The amendment was supported by several anti-RCV watchdog groups, including Stop RCV, Election Transparency Initiative, Honest Elections Project, and Fair Elections Fund. Two local groups, Freedom Principle MO and Liberty Alliance, led the Yes on Amendment 7 campaign to enshrine the ban in the Missouri State Constitution and shield the state from the RCV scheme.
The pro-RCV lobby opposed this move, viewing Amendment 7 as a threat to their agenda. They had been trying to push ranked-choice voting into other states for years. In Missouri, the pro-RCV lobby supported local groups like Missouri Citizens Against Amendment 7 and Preserve Local Elections to campaign against the amendment.
Back in 2022, the pro-RCV lobby attempted to place a ranked-choice voting measure on the ballot through a petition. They raised $6.83 million and backed Better Elections-Missouri, a group aiming to collect enough signatures for the 2022 midterms. However, they failed to gather the required signatures, and the petition did not qualify for the ballot.
Thankfully, the pro-RCV scheme was stopped before reaching voters. Missouri recognized that the pro-RCV lobby might try again in the future, so banning RCV with Amendment 7 was a proactive step to prevent this system from ever being established.
On election day in 2024, Amendment 7 was passed decisively, with 1,966,851 Yes votes (68.44%) and 906,861 No votes (31.56%).
As an Alaskan, I am proud and thankful to the great State of Missouri and the brave men and women who voted to pass Amendment 7. Their victory shows that the people of Missouri stood strong against the powerful pro-RCV lobby and did the right thing to protect fair elections.
Colorado
In 2024, the State of Colorado became a political battleground over the fight to implement ranked-choice voting (RCV). The pro-RCV lobby sought to radically change how people vote in elections. Their scheme came in the form of a ballot proposal known as Proposition 131.
The pro-RCV lobby promoted Prop 131 as a way to create an open primary where all candidates appear on the same ballot, giving voters more voice. They claimed ranked-choice voting would reduce political polarization. However, Prop 131 was a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It takes away voter choice by forcing people to rank multiple candidates they may not support. Many voters prefer to vote for just one candidate they believe in, without ranking others.
If a candidate does not receive enough votes in the first round, they are eliminated along with the votes of their supporters, leaving those voters effectively disenfranchised. Prop 131 aimed to replace traditional primaries with a top-four jungle primary and use ranked-choice voting in the general election.
The pro-RCV lobby organized a campaign called Colorado Voters Choice to support the measure. They were financed by out-of-state pro-RCV groups and wealthy donors, including Unite America—the same group behind the push for ranked-choice voting in Alaska. They spent around $19 million trying to get Colorado to adopt this unfair system.
Meanwhile, brave Coloradans formed groups like First Choice Counts and Colorado Voter Rights. They led the No on Prop 131 campaign to protect voting integrity and fair elections. Many voters were aware of Alaska’s experience with ranked-choice voting and used it as a warning to reject RCV.
On election day, Proposition 131 was defeated with 1,595,256 No votes (53.53%) to 1,385,060 Yes votes (46.47%).
As an Alaskan, I thank the great State of Colorado and the brave men and women who united to oppose Prop 131. Their victory proves that the people have the will to stand against the powerful pro-RCV lobby.
Not too long after, in 2025, Denver’s city council narrowly rejected a proposal to implement ranked-choice voting for city elections, with a close vote of 7-6.
Nevada
Not too long ago, in 2024, the State of Nevada became a political battleground over the issue of implementing ranked-choice voting (RCV). The pro-RCV lobby sought to turn Nevada into another Alaska by pushing their agenda through a ballot initiative known as Question 3.
The campaign advertised Question 3 as a way to open primaries, allowing voters to choose any candidate regardless of party affiliation. However, this was misleading. Question 3 was really about changing the traditional voting system by establishing a top-five jungle primary and using ranked-choice voting in the general election.
The pro-RCV lobby organized the Yes on 3 campaign to promote the initiative. This campaign was financed by out-of-state special interest groups, including Unite America based in Denver, Colorado, and Article IV based in Arlington, Virginia, along with billionaire and millionaire donors—many of whom were the same people behind the push for ranked-choice voting in Alaska. They spent approximately $42.8 million trying to trap Nevada in a confusing and unfair voting system.
Meanwhile, local Nevadans formed the Stop RCV Nevada campaign to oppose Question 3. This group was made up of people from various political parties united in a nonpartisan cause to defend traditional voting and elections. They had learned from Alaska’s experience with ranked-choice voting and used it as a warning to other states.
The Stop RCV Nevada campaign warned voters about the pitfalls of ranked-choice voting and urged them to vote no on Question 3 to avoid suffering the same fate as Alaska.
On election day, Question 3 was defeated with 747,719 No votes (52.96%) and 664,011 Yes votes (47.04%).
As an Alaskan, I am proud and thankful to the great State of Nevada and the brave men and women who stood against the powerful pro-RCV lobby. Their victory shows that the people of Nevada have the will to protect fair elections and reject ranked-choice voting.
Massachusetts
Years ago, in 2020, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts faced a political battle over ranked-choice voting (RCV). The pro-RCV lobby sought to radically change the political landscape of the United States by transforming how states hold elections and how people vote. This effort took the form of a ballot measure called Question 2.
The measure was pitched as a way to open primaries and give voters more choices. Question 2 would have installed ranked-choice voting in primaries and generals for many state and federal offices. The pro-RCV lobby organized a group named Voter Choice Massachusetts, which led the “Yes on Question 2” campaign.
This campaign was financed by out-of-state special interest groups and wealthy donors, such as Action Now Initiative from Houston, Texas, and Unite America from Denver, Colorado. These groups were the same ones behind the push for ranked-choice voting in Alaska during the same year.
The pro-RCV side spent approximately $10.1 million trying to get Massachusetts to adopt the system. Meanwhile, local citizens formed the “No Ranked Choice Voting-MA” campaign (also known as “No 2 Ranked Choice Voting-MA”) to oppose the measure and protect traditional elections.
Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker and Lieutenant Governor Karyn Polito expressed concerns that ranked-choice voting was confusing, complex, and unfair. They warned that it could create uncertainty in elections and urged voters to reject Question 2.
On election day, Question 2 was defeated, with 1,877,447 “No” votes (54.78%) compared to 1,549,919 “Yes” votes (45.22%).
From an Alaskan perspective, we thank the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for rejecting ranked-choice voting and avoiding the same fate Alaska faced. The brave men and women who voted down Question 2 showed that the people still have the will to stand against powerful pro-RCV interests.
Oregon
The year was 2024 when the State of Oregon faced a political battle over the push for ranked-choice voting (RCV). The pro-RCV lobby aimed to change the political landscape, altering how people vote and how politicians are elected to public office. This effort came in the form of a ballot proposition known as Measure 117.
Measure 117 was presented as a way to amplify voters’ voices and provide more choices in selecting candidates. However, it was essentially a wolf in sheep’s clothing, seeking to establish ranked-choice voting for state and federal elections, replacing traditional primaries and the standard voting process.
The pro-RCV lobby organized a campaign called Oregon Ranked Choice Voting Advocates, leading the “Yes on 117” effort. This campaign was financed by out-of-state special interest groups and wealthy donors, including Unite America from Denver, Colorado; Article IV from Arlington, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.; and Our American Future, also based in Washington, D.C. They spent approximately $7.5 million trying to impose this confusing and unfair system on Oregon voters.
Meanwhile, many county clerk officials raised concerns about the high costs of implementing the new system, including expenses for new equipment that could run into millions of dollars for taxpayers. Local citizens feared their votes would be disenfranchised.
In response, county clerks and grassroots activists formed the “No Ranked Voting-Oregon” campaign, leading the opposition to Measure 117. Having witnessed Alaska’s experience with ranked-choice voting, they urged Oregon voters to reject the measure and avoid suffering the same consequences.
On election day, Measure 117 was decisively defeated, with 1,219,013 “No” votes (57.70%) compared to 893,668 “Yes” votes (42.30%).
From my home state of Alaska, we thank the great State of Oregon for rejecting ranked-choice voting. We commend the brave men, women, and grassroots activists who stood against Measure 117. Their victory proves that people have the will to stand up to powerful, out-of-state pro-RCV interests—the very same forces behind the push for ranked-choice voting in Alaska.
Montana
In 2024, Montana faced a significant political battle over the implementation of ranked-choice voting (RCV) and election reforms. The pro-RCV lobby sought to radically change the way Montanans vote by introducing a ballot constitutional amendment known as CI-126. This initiative aimed to replace traditional primaries with a top-four jungle primary system and establish ranked-choice voting for general elections for state and federal offices.
Alongside CI-126, there was CI-127, which proposed changing the winning threshold in elections to require a candidate to receive 50 percent of the vote, rather than just a plurality. CI-127 also mandated that the Montana state legislature pass a law to determine how this majority requirement would be implemented—either through ranked-choice voting or a runoff election.
The pro-RCV campaign, known as Yes on 126 or Montanans for Election Reform and Open Primaries for Montana, led the push for these changes. This campaign was financially backed by out-of-state special interest groups and wealthy donors, including Unite America PAC (Denver, Colorado), Action Now Initiative (Houston, Texas), Article IV (Arlington, Virginia), and the Sixteen Thirty Fund (Washington, D.C.). Notably, these are the same groups that supported the push for ranked-choice voting in my home state of Alaska, spending around $5 million to influence Montana’s election laws.
However, many Montanans recognized the dangers of these amendments. A group called Montanans for Fair Elections formed to oppose CI-126 and CI-127, warning that these initiatives would lead to unfair, confusing elections and open the door to disaster. They urged voters to reject the proposals in defense of free and fair elections.
On election day, Constitutional Initiative 126 was narrowly defeated. The “No” votes totaled 300,664 (51.09%), while the “Yes” votes were 287,837 (48.91%). This outcome is a victory not only for Montana but also for Alaska, which has experienced challenges with ranked-choice voting.
Alaska thanks Montana for standing firm against ranked-choice voting and jungle primaries. The brave Montanans who united to vote “No” demonstrated the people’s will to resist powerful, out-of-state lobbying groups backed by wealthy interests. Their success serves as a reminder of the importance of protecting traditional election systems that uphold clarity and fairness.
South Dakota
The year was 2024. The State of South Dakota had a political battle that was a fight over jungle primaries. Out-of-state special interest groups were looking to change the political landscape, influence and buy elections, and back candidates aligned with them to help them be elected to state and federal office. These groups had their agenda in the form of a ballot measure to the state constitution known as Amendment H. They pitched that it was about having an open primary where all the candidates appear on the same ballot and all voters can vote for who they want to run for office. When in fact, Amendment H was about replacing traditional primaries with a top-two jungle primary.
These groups organized a campaign and called themselves South Dakota Open Primaries. They led the Yes on Amendment H side in support of the measure. The South Dakota Open Primaries campaign was being backed and financed by out-of-state special interest groups and wealthy donors, including Article IV, based in Arlington, Virginia. They happen to be the same people behind the push for jungle primaries and ranked-choice voting in other states, including my home state of Alaska back in 2020. They spent like $1.6 million trying to get Amendment H adopted into law.
Meanwhile, a group of brave South Dakota citizens organized a group and called themselves Vote No on Amendment H, also known as Vote No on H. They led the campaign to oppose the proposed initiative, protect free and fair elections from being taken over by outsiders, defend traditional primaries, and urge voters to vote no on Amendment H.
On election day, Constitutional Amendment H was vanquished by No votes of 270,048 (65.61%), while the Yes side only got 141,570 votes (34.39%).
My home state of Alaska thanks the great State of South Dakota for rejecting jungle primaries and thanks the brave men and women who took part in the campaign to oppose Amendment H and voted it down, proving that the people of South Dakota have the will to take on out-of-state left-wing-leaning special interest groups who are funded by dark money.
A few years ago, back in 2023, South Dakota’s state legislature passed a bill that banned the use of ranked-choice voting from ever being implemented or used in elections, and South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem signed the bill into law. South Dakota learned about Alaska’s experience with ranked-choice voting in 2022 and how disastrous it was and didn’t want to end up with the same fate.
Washington, D.C. (honorable mention)
In 2024, there was a political battle over a ballot measure in the capital city of the United States of America, known as Washington, D.C. The measure was known as Initiative 83, which was aimed at establishing ranked-choice voting in D.C.
The support campaign was known as Make All Votes Count DC, which supported the measure. The Yes on Initiative 83 campaign was heavily backed by nongovernment groups and special-interest donors like Unite America, based in Denver, Colorado, which raised and gave $555,000.00. There is All One God Faith Inc., based in Vista, California, which gave a contribution of $363,065.30. There is FairVote Action, based in Takoma Park, Maryland, and they gave a contribution of $156,011.54. There is Filiblaster LLC, based in Washington, D.C., which gave a contribution of $45,627.22. There is the Final Five Fund, based in Chicago, Illinois, and they gave a contribution of $25,000.00. Make All Votes Count DC raised $1,283,750.21.
The local opposition campaign was known as Vote No on Initiative 83, which was entirely grassroots. Both the D.C. Republican Party and the D.C. Democratic Party came out and opposed Initiative 83. The No on Initiative 83 campaign only raised $5,723.29.
The Yes on Initiative 83 side stated that the proposal would stop voter suppression, when in fact ranked-choice voting is voter suppression. The opposition side did their best to convince voters to reject this measure from falling into a trap of having so-called open primaries.
When it came to election day, the votes were Yes votes of 212,332 (72.89%) and No votes of 78,961 (27.11%). Initiative 83 was passed into law, and the opposition did their best despite being outspent.
Sources
Idaho: Idaho Capital Sun; Wikipedia, 2024 Idaho Proposition 1; Idaho Statesman; Ballotpedia Arizona: Ballotpedia; Wikipedia; Votebeat; Goldwater Institute; KJZZ Missouri: KCUR; Wikipedia; Ballotpedia; KSDK Colorado: Colorado Sun; Axios Denver; Ballotpedia; Denver Post (2025 council vote) Nevada: Ballotpedia; Guinn Center; Nevada Current; KNPR Massachusetts: Wikipedia; Ballotpedia; WGBH; Boston.com Oregon: Ballotpedia; Oregon Capital Chronicle; OPB Montana: Ballotpedia (CI-126 and CI-127); Montana Free Press; YPR South Dakota: Wikipedia; Ballotpedia; Argus Leader; Dakota News Now Washington, D.C.: Ballotpedia; Wikipedia; Hill Rag; WUSA9; DC Democratic Party
In the quiet shadow of Denali, on the grounds of St. Bernard Catholic Church in the small Alaska town of Talkeetna, stands a four-foot aluminum statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Her arms are outstretched in welcome. At the center of her breast rests a golden heart. A clear plexiglass encasement now surrounds the statue, protecting it from the harsh northern weather while still allowing pilgrims to approach and pray. Locals and visitors pass it often without knowing its full story. Yet for one young family, that statue became the place where they experienced what they firmly believe was a profound act of God’s mercy.
Before recounting their story, it is important to understand what Catholics mean by the word “miracle.” In Catholic understanding, a miracle is an extraordinary event that surpasses the ordinary powers of nature and is attributable to the special intervention of God. It serves as a sign pointing beyond itself—toward faith, conversion, and the glory of God. The Church approaches claimed miracles with great caution. For an event to be declared miraculous in an official sense (especially in causes of saints or the approval of shrines), rigorous investigation is required: medical experts must rule out natural explanations, theological criteria must be met, and the local bishop or higher authority must issue a formal judgment.
Private healings attributed to the intercession of the Blessed Virgin, even when well-documented and deeply consoling to those involved, remain matters of personal faith. They do not bind the conscience of other Catholics, and they carry no official ecclesiastical declaration unless one is later given. The events surrounding Bruce Paul are presented here precisely in that spirit—as a testimony of one family’s experience, not as a decree of the Church. Private experiences of grace, including reported healings, do not bind the conscience of other Catholics. The Church encourages gratitude and prayer while reminding the faithful that God alone is the source of all healing, whether through ordinary medical means or extraordinary intervention.
The story of this particular statue begins far from Alaska, in the dark days of World War II. In 1944, an American GI named George Herter was among the forces liberating Belgium. He fell in love with a local woman, Berthe Charleroi, a devout Catholic. After the war, they married. By then they already had an infant son, Jacques. Military policy required them to travel to the United States on separate ships. Berthe and the baby boarded the SS Brazil. A mysterious and violent illness broke out among the children. Aboard another ship, the SS Zebulon Vance, ten children died. The two little ones on the Brazil were dangerously dehydrated.
Once the ship docked, Berthe raced her son to a Catholic hospital in Pittsburgh. In her possession was a small leaf taken from the famous hawthorn tree in Beauraing, Belgium—the tree beneath which the Virgin Mary had appeared to five children between November 29, 1932, and January 3, 1933. During those apparitions the Mother of God had revealed a golden heart shining in the center of her breast. Because of that vision she became known as Our Lady of the Golden Heart.
Berthe placed the hawthorn leaf under Jacques’ pillow. By some reports the cure was almost instantaneous. Newspaper accounts noted that the Herter baby arrived on a Thursday and was discharged the following Tuesday. Another sick child on the same boat received the same medical care but without the leaf; that child’s outcome was not the same.
In thanksgiving for his son’s life, George Herter later commissioned approximately fifty aluminum statues of Our Lady of the Golden Heart, each said to contain a splinter of the sacred hawthorn. One of those statues eventually made its way, by paths still partly mysterious, to the outdoor grounds of St. Bernard Church in Talkeetna. A protective plexiglass encasement now surrounds the figure, preserving it for future generations while inviting the faithful to draw near.
Nearly eighty years later, another family would stand before that same image and ask for the same motherly intercession.
In September 2022, Eric and Andrea Paul welcomed their first child, Bruce. Early check-ups revealed a heart murmur. Tests showed large holes in the infant’s heart. At five months old Bruce underwent open-heart surgery. The operation closed the defects, yet problems remained. Medications helped only partially. The baby struggled to gain weight, and his heart valves were not aligning properly. Doctors prepared the family for the likelihood of another major open-heart surgery when Bruce reached the age of six.
Andrea’s sister Natalie began searching for any relic or place of prayer in Alaska that might offer spiritual support. An old article in the archdiocesan newspaper April 25, 2008 by James DeCrane led her to the statue of Our Lady of the Golden Heart in Talkeetna—only about fifty miles from their home. The family decided to make a pilgrimage.
In April 2024, Eric and Andrea, little Bruce, Natalie and her family, and even the family’s two dogs, Bear and Moose, drove to St. Bernard Church. The outdoor shelter that housed the statue was simple. Behind it grew devil’s club and wild rose. Protected now by its plexiglass encasement, the golden heart remained clearly visible. The adults gathered close and began to pray, asking Mary to intercede for Bruce exactly as she had once interceded for the soldier’s little boy Jacques.
What happened next remains vivid in their memory. They gathered around the statue, and each family member expressed, in their own words, prayers of petition for Bruce—for his healing, if it be God’s will, and for the grace they would need to persevere and endure if Bruce were to face another open-heart surgery or ongoing medical needs. The sincerity of each person’s heart being poured out in prayer was, according to Andrea, Bruce’s mom, “truly encouraging and uplifting.” “You could just really feel like she was there with us,” Andrea later said. “That was really miraculous, just in itself.” Eric added, “He was enthralled with this heart… It felt like she was standing there.”
The dogs, normally obedient, behaved strangely. They approached the area around the statue and, according to the family, displayed an unusual reverence that lasted several minutes—echoing, in a small way, the reports from Beauraing in 1932 when even fierce dogs had suddenly become gentle in the Virgin’s presence.
The family left Talkeetna with peaceful hearts but no dramatic signs of change that day. The true confirmation came at the next medical appointments. Bruce’s once-loud heart murmur was gone. Subsequent echocardiograms and EKGs showed that the valves were now moving better and closing properly with each heartbeat. The surgery that had loomed over the family’s future was no longer necessary. Bruce began gaining weight and growing with new energy. “Praise God, and thank you, Mary!” Eric exclaimed.
There was another healing as well. Eric had been raised Protestant and had never practiced Marian devotion. Standing before the statue in Talkeetna, he knelt and prayed. The experience opened a door. He began praying the Rosary and entered the process of becoming Catholic.
The messages of Our Lady of Beauraing have always been simple and profound: a call to prayer, penance, sacrifice, and the renewal of faith. She asked for a chapel and for people to come on pilgrimage. In the quiet Alaska woods, far from the original hawthorn tree, one of her images continues that invitation. A soldier’s gratitude after the Second World War carried her statue across an ocean and a continent. Decades later, a young mother’s desperate hope and a toddler’s spontaneous touch met the same Golden Heart.
Unique to this Alaskan setting is a quiet reminder that, in the eyes of faith, there are no mere coincidences. Just north of Talkeetna lies Fairbanks, long known as the “Golden Heart of Alaska” or the “Golden Heart City.” The nickname arose from the Gold Rush era that founded the community in the early 1900s, when prospectors sought earthly gold in the heart of the Interior. Today the city still celebrates that identity with Golden Heart Plaza and other landmarks. That the statue of Our Lady of the Golden Heart stands so near the place already called Alaska’s Golden Heart feels, to those who pray here, like a gentle divine signature—an invitation to seek a different kind of gold, the pure gold of Mary’s heart and the healing it can bring from her Son through her prayerful intercession for us.
Today, Bruce runs and plays with the unselfconscious energy of a healthy little boy. A few colleagues and I had the opportunity to meet Bruce, along with his parents and sibling, this past August. He is truly a happy, vivacious, congenial, and playful four-year-old who shared books, played games, and showed us his favorite toys. As we parted, he shook everyone’s hand and insisted on giving a hug to the only ordained clergy member who accompanied us. His parents continue to share the story of their miracle with anyone who inquires, and they plan to revisit Our Lady of the Golden Heart soon.
The aluminum image stands as it has for years—arms open, golden heart visible—under the vast Alaskan sky. For those who know its story, it is no longer just a statue. It is a reminder that the Mother of God still travels with her children, still hears their cries, still places her golden heart against the broken places of the world, and still intercedes for a world in need of healing, one small life at a time.
Disclaimer: This account is a narrative based on the family’s own experience of faith and answered prayer as well as historical records concerning a claimed healing. It is not an official declaration of a miracle by any diocese, archdiocese, or ecclesiastical authority. In the Catholic Church, such local claims remain private matters of faith unless formally investigated and approved.
