Sunday, June 14, 2026
Home Blog Page 770

David Ignell: If ethical rules matter to Dunleavy, his attorney general must resign

GUEST CONTRIBUTOR
-
83
David Ignell: If ethical rules matter to Dunleavy, his attorney general must resign

By DAVID IGNELL

On Dec. 1, I sent a letter to Gov. Mike Dunleavy requesting the resignation of Attorney General Treg Taylor. For the complete basis of my request, you may read my five-page letter here. For a summary of my letter, please read on.

Ignell-to-Dunleavy-12-1-22Download

The Alaska Court Rules of Professional Conduct establish the ethical obligations for all practicing lawyers in our state. For example, the Rules are supposed to prevent lawyers from representing clients if they have a conflict of interest. For instance, when a grand jury is investigating the Department of Law, a lawyer from the department who is subordinate to the officers being investigated can’t be the grand jury’s advisor. Common sense stuff, right?

The Rules are also supposed to place special responsibilities on prosecutors. For instance, Rule 3.8 imposes special duties on them to prevent and rectify the conviction of innocent people, such as disclosing to the court new and credible evidence indicating a person did not commit a crime they were convicted of. Again, this isn’t rocket science.

The final set of Rules falls under the heading, “Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession.” It sounds pretty important, doesn’t it? This is where actions constituting professional misconduct are outlined, and where other lawyers are instructed to report the misconduct of their colleagues. Lawyers are after all, a self-regulating bunch, according to the Rules.

One clear example of misconduct is for a prosecutor and a judge to force an unfair trial where the attorney for the accused is not given an equal opportunity to prepare and present their case. The Rules call a lopsided trial like that a “perversion” and an “obstruction of justice.” The Rules say it undermines public respect for our legal system.

The Rules tell Alaska lawyers their “relative autonomy” carries with it grave responsibilities. They are specifically instructed that “neglect of these responsibilities compromises the independence of the profession and the public interest which it serves.”

Attorney General Treg Taylor is supposed to abide by these Rules. Many citizens would probably agree it is more critical for Taylor to follow his ethical responsibilities than it is for any other lawyer in Alaska. When an attorney general ignores these duties, what message is sent to every other lawyer in the state?

Starting about six weeks ago, I tried to remind Taylor of his ethical responsibilities regarding 1) grand jury investigations in Juneau and Kenai, 2) the wrongful conviction of Thomas Jack Jr., of Hoonah, and 3) the misconduct of the prosecutors and judge that landed an innocent man in jail.

For good measure I copied Dunleavy on my letters to Taylor. Taylor didn’t respond. Neither did Dunleavy.

This wasn’t the first time I’ve brought Dunleavy’s attention to an egregious ethical violation by a high-ranking lawyer within his administration. It wasn’t the first time Dunleavy has ignored me.

Taylor is Dunleavy’s third attempt at trying to find a good apple to serve as Alaska’s attorney general. His first two didn’t pan out too well. Is that a reflection on our governor, the Alaska Bar Association, or both?

When our legal system doesn’t care about its ethical obligations, the public is not only justified in expressing their concerns, but the Rules even predict our angst.

If you think Alaskans are entitled to an attorney general who respects the ethical rules they are supposed to follow, then let Dunleavy know. Liberty and justice depend on you.

David Ignell was born and raised in Juneau, where he currently resides. He holds a law degree from University of San Diego and formerly practiced as a licensed attorney in state and federal courts in California. He is a forensic journalist and author of a recent book on the Alaska Grand Jury.

David Ignell: Fight for judicial reform and elimination of Democrat cartel controlling our courts, Round 2

Seattle hops on the ranked-choice voting bandwagon

Suzanne Downing
-
32
Seattle hops on the ranked-choice voting bandwagon

Seattle voters have narrowly approved moving their elections to ranked-choice voting, the system that Alaska voters approved in 2020 and used for the first time this year.

About 51% of Seattle voters in the Nov. 8 election agreed to change the city’s primary voting system from the usual top-two to the new election fad of ranking candidates from most liked to least. about 49% of voters opposed the change.

The ballot measure was a two-part question. The first question asked voters if they wanted to remake the city’s procedures for conducting primary elections.

Then, voters were asked a second question: Which would they prefer — ranked choice voting or “approval voting,” in which voters could choose any number of candidates in city primaries, but assigns no ranking to them.

People who answered the second question overwhelmingly preferred ranked choice voting, by 76-24%.

The Seattle City Council is dominated by socialists and far-left Democrats. It’s possible that ranked-choice voting will work against them. But the measure was close, passing by only 6,000 votes. Some 911,000 King County voters cast ballots.

Fargo, North Dakota passed an initiative in 2018 allowing it to use approval voting in its local elections, becoming the first community in the nation to move to that method.

In Alaska, a citizen application has been filed with the office of the lieutenant governor to begin collecting signatures on a petition to reverse the initiative passed in 2020 by just 4,000 votes. Critics say the system is set up to give liberal candidates an advantage in a conservative state and, indeed, ranked choice voting led to Alaska’s only congressional seat being occupied by a Democrat, even though only 12.5% of Alaska voters are registered Democrats.

Andrew Satterfield: Councils, boards, commissions and how I learned to stop griping and love the process

GUEST CONTRIBUTOR
-
8
Andrew Satterfield: Councils, boards, commissions and how I learned to stop griping and love the process

By ANDREW SATTERFIELD

My first foray into the government sphere has been a flurry of experiences. Thanks to these experiences, I can tell you that it is absolutely necessary for more of us to engage with our government systems. 

Unfortunately, as conservatives we are too conservative with our engagement in the government sphere. I considered myself a staunchly apathetic conservative — I was fearless in the face of increased taxes because I was an “independent business owner who didn’t need entitlements.”

From the conversations I’ve had during this election season, I feel as though many of us expect the municipal and state government to raise taxes, increase in bureaucracy and wastefulness, and just barely break even on giving you and I “normal citizens” a decent society. Perhaps you’re like I was before I ran for State Senate and you abhor the idea of being engaged with the government system and our worthy opponents. 

In fact, many independent voters I spoke with expressed similar feelings and views as the above paragraph. It seems like a lot of us want a government that is for them, but they don’t want to put the necessary effort into the process to make the dream (a quintessential conservative government) happen. This is why we are left stuttering and confused at the results of countless elections. Our worthy opponents — the public employee unions, the Democrats, and the “nonpartisan legislators,” have glorified public service, especially in the government sphere. It is a highly valued badge, a trophy that is earned whether you are a community council president or the governor of the state.

This is why we need you to engage now. The effort it takes for an unknown individual to campaign and win is enormous. Candidates and causes must achieve, in no particular order, name recognition, a campaign team with clear goals and motives, voter loyalty, and prove they’re the best solution to be voted for.

So I want to invite you into any of these pursuits: 

  • Get involved in your community council. I don’t care if you’re the only “normal person.” Get involved.
  • Get involved in a mayoral commission. There is a huge list of openings, and there is a lot of opportunity for the conservative voice to come to the table and be heard in these meetings. Pick one and join it.
  • Frequent the political meet and greets, fundraisers, and community housing events. Even the ones with that one Democrat that you can’t stand. You’ll quickly discover they’re human beings, and they are more complicated than what their persona gives off. 
  • Pursue legislators, community aid nonprofit organizations, and advocacy groups with the purpose to honor, listen, support, and even collaborate with them. 

We’re looking down the muzzle of another election coming this April, 2023. Yes. Another one. I can almost hear the combination of annoyance and confusion of both the disengaged and non-voting conservatives/Republicans.

Here’s the rub, if more of us don’t engage our time and money into the government sector then it will be ruled by those who have no commonality with our way of life.

Andrew Satterfield ran for state Senate for East Anchorage in 2022, losing to Anchorage Assemblyman Forrest Dunbar. Satterfield owns a small business in Anchorage.

Alaska Family Council files brief supporting Colorado web designer in her fight for religious liberty

Suzanne Downing
-
13
Alaska Family Council files brief supporting Colorado web designer in her fight for religious liberty

Alaska Family Council has joined family policy councils across the country to file a legal brief supporting Lorie Smith, a Colorado web designer fighting a Colorado law that would force her to create messages endorsing same-sex marriage. The case is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Whether it’s Colorado, Washington, D.C., or Alaska, we’re proud to stand in defense of free speech and religious liberty,” said AFC President Jim Minnery.

Alaska Family Council can be found at this link.

The brief says, “It is one thing if the pressure to conform remains cultural rather than legal. While online attacks are difficult to endure, one can persevere and still speak. While peer shame can sting, only a small amount of courage is required to preserve one’s public voice.”

Minnery said, “State censorship and compulsions, however, are different matters altogether. It is the state that wields the power of the sword. It is the state that can bar entrance into the marketplace of ideas. It is the state that can dictate whether a citizen can open a business or earn a living. Thus, it is the state that is the eternal threat to liberty. Only the state can truly suppress the American idea.”

Colorado is trying to bully a Christian business owner into applauding same-sex marriage or risk the government forcing her out of business. Unfortunately, this is a trend that has been occurring for some time now.

In 2015, Alaska Family Council featured Barronelle Stutzman at its annual dinner. She is another Christian business owner who endured years of legal battles for simply wanting to operate as a floral artist consistent with her deeply held conviction that marriage is a sacred union, designed by God, between one man and one woman. 

“Lovers of freedom should all be grateful to Lorie Smith for standing up and for our friends at Alliance Defending Freedom for taking this case to the Supreme Court,” Minnery said.

Religious liberty at Supreme Court: Can a designer be forced to design a same-sex wedding website?

Supreme Court hears case relating to court election interference in states

SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR
-
5
Supreme Court hears case relating to court election interference in states

By CASEY HARPER

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in Moore v. Harper, a case that could have major implications on state legislatures’ control of their elections free of federal interference.

In question in the case is the interpretation of part of Article I of the Constitution. Article I says that state legislatures have the authority to make rules around the “Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections.

As The Center Square previously reported, Republican lawmakers in North Carolina argue in a brief to the court that “the text of the Elections Clause provides the answer: it assigns state legislatures the federal function of regulating congressional elections.”

The case began when North Carolina lawmakers created a new congressional district map that critics say was gerrymandered, a tactic commonly used by whichever party is in power to draw district lines so that the voting demographics in each district are divided up to help one party win more seats.

Democrats challenged the map in court, and eventually North Carolina’s state Supreme Court, which is majority Democrat, ruled against Republicans’ map. Special masters were tasked to draw maps used in the 2022 midterms, and their intent – also through use of gerrymandering – to produce a 7-7 split of Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. House was achieved.

Now at the U.S. Supreme Court, attorneys for lawmakers argue the Constitution explicitly gives the power over elections to state legislatures, regardless of what the state courts rule.

The justices grilled both sides, with both liberal and conservative justices raising tough questions. 

“If the North Carolina decision is permitted to stand, state courts will usurp the prerogatives of state legislatures,” said Bartlett Cleland, counsel for ALEC, which filed an amicus brief in the case. “As stated by the U.S. Supreme Court just two years ago, ‘The Constitution provides that state legislatures – not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials – bear primary responsibility for setting election rules.'”

The ACLU took the opposite side, saying in a statement Wednesday that North Carolina “legislators are asking for the power to ignore their own state constitutions.”

“Our government is based on the idea that legislators and all government actors must act within the bounds of written constitutions created by the People,” ACLU said in a statement. “The Supreme Court must uphold the rule of law in our federal elections. Our democracy is at stake.”

Amy Howe, of SCOTUSBlog.com, wrote that the justices were not leaning toward the state legislature’s unfettered rights: “The Supreme Court on Wednesday signaled that it may not be ready to adopt a sweeping interpretation of the Constitution, known as the ‘independent state legislature’ theory, that would give state legislatures broad power to regulate federal elections without interference from state courts. Although some justices appeared receptive to that theory during nearly three hours of argument, it was not clear that there was a majority to endorse it, even as other justices focused on a narrower version of the theory that would preserve at least some role for state courts in enforcing state laws or the state constitution.”

Casey Harper is a senior reporter for the Washington, D.C. Bureau. He previously worked for The Daily Caller, The Hill, and Sinclair Broadcast Group. A graduate of Hillsdale College, Casey’s work has also appeared in Fox News, Fox Business, and USA Today.

Sheldon Fisher: LDS views Respect for Marriage Act represents as a balanced approach

GUEST CONTRIBUTOR
-
55
Sheldon Fisher: LDS views Respect for Marriage Act represents as a balanced approach

By SHELDON FISHER

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that each of us is a literal spirit son or daughter of God, created in His image. We call God our “Heavenly Father” because he is the father of our spirits. Before this life we lived with Him; He knew us and loved us… and we knew and loved Him.  

Because God is the Father of all humankind, we recognize each other as spiritual brothers and sisters. In our faith, the family is central to God’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children, and marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.

Understanding those fundamental theological tenets, many have expressed surprise that the LDS Church has supported the approach of the Respect for Marriage Act, as amended by the Senate, which ensures federal government recognition for lawful same-sex marriages.

As a member and communication director of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints here in Alaska, I write to thank Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Sen. Dan Sullivan for their votes on final passage to ensure the balanced approach represented in the Respect for Marriage Act. 

For some time now, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints has supported a “fairness for all” approach that seeks to both preserve the rights of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters while including religious freedom protections. For us, the foundation of fairness for all comes from the two great commandments taught by Jesus Christ: to love God and to love our neighbor. 

We recognize that people in the LGBTQ community and people and institutions in the faith community — including many who are in both — have significant interests at stake in the treatment of same-sex marriage. The Respect for Marriage Act represents a balanced approach to addressing these interests.  I am grateful for Sen. Sullivan’s efforts to meet with faith leaders and work relentlessly to advocate for our concerns. Similarly, I thank Sen. Murkowski who has been a stalwart supporter of a balanced approach for some time.  

At its core, the Respect for Marriage Act both recognizes same-sex marriage and protects religious rights.  Of specific interest to us, the Respect for Marriage Act:

  • Affirms explicit congressional support for traditional marriage supporters;
  • Directs courts that recognition of same-sex marriage does not diminish current statutory religious liberties;
  • Protects the rights of religious and social services organizations from being required to host, participate in, or accommodate same-sex wedding ceremonies;
  • Protects such organizations from being sued for not accommodating or participating in same-sex wedding ceremonies; and
  • Prevents the federal government from discriminating or retaliating against religious organizations that hold a traditional view of marriage.

While I suppose that neither side got everything it may have wanted, the Respect for Marriage Act balances religious liberties and LGBTQ rights without either side having to compromise core values. We believe in freedom for all, and we believe in fairness for all. In the effort to balance competing demands, we will work to resolve issues in a way that doesn’t extinguish another’s rights and invite others to do the same.

As we hold to our teachings in these important and often very personal issues, we support others in doing the same. We seek to heal rather than injure and to unify rather than divide. We hope to work together to preserve the principles and practices of religious freedom together with the rights of others, and to foster greater understanding along the way.  

I thank Sen. Sullivan and Sen. Murkowski for their thoughtful and courageous leadership in addressing what could otherwise remain a divisive issue.

Sheldon Fisher has held various assignments in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which functions through a volunteer or “lay” ministry of its members. He currently serves as a communication director for the Church here in Alaska. Fisher also served as the commissioner of Administration and commissioner of Revenue for Gov. Bill Walker.

Respect for Marriage Act passes Senate with Murkowski and Sullivan voting ‘aye’

On Thursday, Rep. Eastman will ask judge to throw out lawsuit claiming he violated Alaska Constitution clause

Suzanne Downing
-
38
On Thursday, Rep. Eastman will ask judge to throw out lawsuit claiming he violated Alaska Constitution clause

On Thursday, Rep. David Eastman will ask a judge to toss the lawsuit against his ability to serve as a legislator.

Mat-Su Valley resident Randall Kowalke and the Northern Justice Project filed a “lawfare” complaint with Superior Court, saying that because Eastman has a lifetime membership with Oath Keepers, he is in violation of the Alaska Constitution’s “disloyalty clause.”

Eastman’s trial date has been set for Dec. 12, and the Dec. 8 hearing is procedural and will be conducted via Zoom teleconference at 9 am.

It’s unlikely that Judge Jack McKenna will throw out the case, even though the State of Alaska, representing the Division of Elections, has also requested the case be tossed. Eastman is represented by attorney Joe Miller.

What the Kowalke-Northern Justice Project is alleging is that mere association with a group whose leaders have been convicted of crimes makes one also guilty of those crimes.

Taking that argument a step further, if the head of a Rotary Club was convicted for running a child trafficking ring, then any member of that Rotary Club would be guilty of the same.

‘Election by ballot’ supporters turn out for Rep. Eastman hearing

But Judge McKenna allowed the case to go forward, which means he also is unlikely to suddenly rule to toss it.

The Oath Keepers is a loose-knit group that is comprised mainly of people who have served in law enforcement or the military. It’s leaeer, Stewart Rhodes and another leader of the organization were found guilty of seditious conspiracy for a plot to foment political violence at the U.S. Capitol and prevent the certification of the 2020 presidential election of President Joe Biden.

The case is 3AN-22-07404CI at this link.

Judge McKenna has ordered the Division of Elections to delay certification of House District 27 election results pending the result of the trial that he has already granted. But he also decided that Eastman could remain on the November ballot. Eastman won with over 50% of the vote, and did not even have to go through the ranked-choice voting process, due to his outright victory.

In high school, Eastman was named was State Eagle Scout of the Year. At West Point, he was a member of the Cadet Honor Committee. He has served as a military police office, firefighter, and EMT. Read more about his case at his legal defense fund website.

State judge says State of Alaska must be part of case against Rep. Eastman over membership in Oath Keepers

Four lawyers nominated for Alaska Supreme Court

Suzanne Downing
-
39
Four lawyers nominated for Alaska Supreme Court

The Alaska Judicial Council has forwarded to Gov. Mike Dunleavy its four nominees for the vacancy coming up on the Alaska Supreme Court with the retirement of Chief Justice Daniel Winfree.

The lawyers selected by the council after an application and interview the previous day were Anchorage Superior Court Judge Dani Crosby, Department of Law attorney Kate Demarest, Fairbanks attorney Aimee Oravec, or Sitka Superior Court Judge Jude Pate.

Gov. Dunleavy has 45 days to choose one of them. By Alaska Constitution, he has no authority other than to choose one of the names the council advances.

The council did not advance Kotzebue Superior Court Judge Paul Roetman, Department of Law Assistant Attorney General Margaret Paton-Walsh, or Holly Wells, an Anchorage attorney in private practice.

Conservative Roetman would have been the only Hispanic and Arctic rural member of the Supreme Court, and for the second time he has been denied the Supreme Court position.

Paton-Walsh, who often must argue cases in front of the Supreme Court on behalf of the State, has also applied previously for a Supreme Court vacancy.

The council voted for:

Dani Crosby: An Alaska resident for more than 36 years who has practiced law for more than 26 years, she graduated from Gonzaga University School of Law in 1996 and is a Superior Court judge in Anchorage.

Kate Demarest: An Alaska resident for over 12 years who has practiced law for 14 years, she graduated from the University of Minnesota Law School in 2008 and is a senior assistant attorney general in the Opinions, Appeals, and Ethics section at the Department of Law in Anchorage.

Aimee A. Oravec: An Alaska resident for over 23 years who has practiced law for 24 years, she graduated from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law in 1998 and is currently general counsel for Doyon Utilities, LLC.

Jude Pate: An Alaska resident for over 29 years, he has practiced law for more than 28 years. Pate graduated from Lewis and Clark Northwestern School of Law in 1993 and is a superior court judge in Sitka.

The council voted unanimously for Oravec and Crosby. Pate and Demarest were advanced with a 5-1 vote, with member Kristie Babcock voting no on Demarest and member Geraldine Simon voting no on Pate.

The Alaska Judicial Council is a commission created by the Alaska Constitution composed of three Alaska Bar Association attorneys, three non-attomeys, and the Chief Justice of the Alaska Supreme Court.

The council completes an investigation and evaluation of judicial applicants, reviewing each applicant’s education, experience, bar discipline, and credit records, participation in community activities, and other records.

It asks members of the Alaska Bar Association cartel to evaluate the applicants, and encourages the public to submit comments, and interviews the applicants.

Director of Elections set to retire this week

Suzanne Downing
-
20
Director of Elections set to retire this week

Gail Fenumiai, who heads up Alaska’s Division of Elections will be retiring at the end of this week, giving Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom the opportunity to choose a new director.

Fenumiai, who served as the division director during the Parnell Administration, was brought back in by former Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer to lead the division as it adjusted to the new reality of Ballot Measure 2’s open primaries and ranked-choice voting general elections.

Fenumiai has two recounts to perform before her final day. Those are for the District 15 House race and for Senate Seat E.

In District 15, seven votes separate Rep. Tom McKay from second-place finisher Denny Wells. In Senate Seat E, third-place finisher Roselynn Cacy, a Democrat, asked for a recount after Republican Cathy Giessel won that race. That race has a 31-vote difference.

District 15 Rep. Tom McKay leads by 7 votes; challenger Denny Wells has asked for recount

Fenumiai has been in the role since 2019, when she was appointed by former Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer. She previously served as the state’s elections director between 2008 and 2015, and is a 20-year veteran of administering Alaska’s elections.

Gail Fenumiai returns as Elections Director
1...769770771...1,792Page 770 of 1,792

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 LNG Special Session: HB 381 Volumetric Tax Debate & Hidden Credit Billions – Marcus Moore Analysis

Podcast 0
https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-qgyhq-1aea995 In this episode of Must Read Alaska's...

Gasline Bill Passes House; Senators Wielechowski and Kawasaki Spread False “90% Tax Break” Claim

Politics 0
Today, June 12, 2026, the House passed the Alaska...

Anchorage Republican Women’s Club Hosts Gubernatorial Debate June 18th

0
Thursday, June 18th, the Anchorage Republican Women's Club is...

© Must Read Alaska