Showing posts with label Alaska. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alaska. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 07, 2026

Silence [UPDATE: Ballots Printed And Overseas Ballots Sent]

[See update below]


The Division of Elections said it had a June 28 deadline to print primary ballots. 

But then they took Daniel J. Sullivan off the ballot in the US Senate race and were challenged in court and required to put him back on by the Superior and then Alaska Supreme Court. 

Then a sample ballot appeared on their website which left off Daniel J.'s political party and added "Incumbent" to Senator Dan S Sullivan's name on the ballot.  (Honorifics are not allowed and someone checked the last four elections and reported that no one had 'incumbent' by their name.)

Since then there's been almost complete silence.  

  • Were the ballots printed?  If so, what do they look like?
  • Did Daniel J. file any sort of legal complaint?  
  • What do the judges think about all this?  They said they'd trust the professionalism of the Division of Elections, but that was clearly a mistake.  
The only word has been from NBC saying the US Department of Justice and the Alaska Attorney General's office are investigating a conspiracy around putting Daniel J. on the ballot. Because he was trying to confuse the public.  I can think of others they should investigate first on that charge.   

Do you think the Republicans are worried about losing the Senate?

It's July 7 already and no word.  Yes, the July 4 holiday took up some time.  In fact the Division of Elections office in Anchorage was closed Friday AND Monday.  




[UPDATE:  July 7, 2026:  I stopped by the Anchorage Division of Elections again today to drop off a voter registration form. (I'm a voter registrar.)  The door was locked.  Entry required me to call them.



When the door finally opened, I handed off the registration form and I had two questions. 

  1. Were the primary ballots printed?  The woman answered, "Yes and they were sent to overseas voters last week."  
  2. My follow up question was: what did the Senate ballot say? "The sample ballot is on our website."  Below is a copy of the sample ballot for District 1. (They show the ballots for each district to show that the order of the names is rotated for each district as required by law.)



As you can see, Daniel J. Sullivan has Jr. after his name and his party was left off.  Dan S. Sullivan got to have both Republican AND "Incumbent" listed.  


" (4) The director may not include on the ballot, as a part of a candidate's name, any honorary or assumed title or prefix but may include in the candidate's name any nickname or familiar form of a proper name of the candidate.
(5) The names of the candidates shall be placed in separate sections on the state general election ballot under the office designation to which they were nominated. If a candidate is registered as affiliated with a political party or political group, the party affiliation, if any, may be designated after the name of the candidate, upon request of the candidate. If a candidate has requested designation as nonpartisan or undeclared, that designation shall be placed after the name of the candidate. If a candidate is not registered as affiliated with a political party or political group and has not requested to be designated as nonpartisan or undeclared, the candidate shall be designated as undeclared."
Therefore, as I read this, placing "Incumbent" after the current Senator's name would seem to fall into the category of 'honorary or assumed title'.  I believe it was the Chief Justice who raised this in the Supreme Court hearing.  Sen. Dan's attorney brushed it off.

And Daniel J.'s political party - Republican- should have been printed under his name.  No matter how much the GOP argue that he only recently registered as a Republican, there is nothing that addresses when one registered, except it has to be done before you turn in the forms for candidacy.  

Is Daniel J.'s attorney working on this?  I don't know.  This is where we are today, as far as I can tell.  

[UPDATE:  I did email Daniel J.'s attorney and he responded that he can't comment at this time.]

Related Posts:


Tuesday, June 30, 2026

Division of Election's Sample Ballot Leaves Off Daniel J's Party Affiliation

The Division of Elections has a Sample Ballot posted on its website.  I believe it went up last night after the Supreme Court hearing.  

(There is another list of Senate candidates which has a red "Denied" next to Daniel J. Sullivan's name.)

The listing is for Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.   There is no party listing.  He is the only candidate with no party listing even if it is just "(Undisclosed)."  I listened to the Court arguments yesterday and to part of the hearing again today.  It was my impression that the Court expected a party designation of Republican next to Daniel J.'s name. Though they never explicitly said so.  

My comment at the end of yesterday's post was that I had less confidence that the Division would do the right thing than the Court seemed to have.  The Republican Party, from the national level (the  National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC)  made the first complaint about Daniel J.  Sullivan being on the ballot) to the many states that sent in amicus briefs supporting the Division's decision to delete Daniel J. from the ballot, to the Alaska Republican Party which filed two more complaints, and whose members include Lt. Governor Dahlstrom (who oversees elections) and the Division head Beecher.  

And here we are.  Today's the day the ballots are scheduled to be printed.  The Division's attorney, Chris Murray, did say that if Sullivan doesn't like how his name appears on the ballot he can appeal it.  But, as Chief Justice Carney replied, the time is short.  


Here's the ballot that's up on the site now:  

Thank you to Matthew Beck who posted this last night on Bluesky

Below is my transcript of part of Monday's court hearing.  As I listened to it, I noticed several things.  
1.  Mr. Murray is good at saying he agrees with what a Justice just said, but then he twists it in his own favor.  
2.  The Justices - particularly Chief Justice Carney - appeared to believe that Daniel J. Sullivan had registered as a Republican before filing and that he should have that designation by his name.  Though Mr. Murray casts doubt on Daniel J's Republican credentials:"if or to the extent that he ever registered with the Republican Party  he did when he filed his declaration of candidacy"
3.  Mr. Murray points out he can be listed as a Republican or nothing at all.  He keeps that option open, though what I heard from the justices was that he was a Republican and should be listed that way.  
4.  Murray points out that if Sullivan doesn't like his designation, he can appeal it, but Chief Justice Carney immediately points out the time crunch.  


"Chief Justice Carney:  49:09  The Division’s proposal  not to list him as a Republican after certifying his declaration of candidacy as a Republican would appear to be a little outside its discretion, wouldn’t it?  Don’t they have to list him as Republican?
Chris Murray: I would respectfully disagree there and I would point you Madame Chief Justice to Alaska Statute 151530 Subsection  5.  If you look there, this talks about how the ballot is prepared.  What’s got to go on there, basically the Division must do and what the Division can do. And I would point you to the second sentence of that subsection. which says, if a candidate is registered as affiliated with a party or group it doesn’t - it doesn’t sound as if there is any debate here, Mr. Sullivan, if or to the extent that he ever registered with the Republican Party  he did when he filed his declaration of candidacy
Justice Henderson:  He registered
Murray:  Justice Henderson, I wanted to get to the next piece.
Justice Henderson:   I don’t see anything in this subsection that allows the Division to force someone to have a descriptor in terms of affiliation, political affiliation,  that is contrary to what they requested.
Murray:  So, there Your Honor, I agree with you.  And in our briefing we suggested that he be listed as non-partisan.  I will say that’s a product of speed, it’s simply not correct.  I think he could be listed as Republican or nothing at all.  That’s what could be done.  So, I think you make a very fair point there.  But I will say that when it comes to the partisan affiliation, the statute says it may be designated after the name of the candidate. 
Chief Justice Carney:  Well, if you journey back to felons in Outside prisons part of that appeal was that if the Democrats didn’t really want to associate with a felon in an Outside prison, right?  He got to appear on the ballot as a Democrat did he not?
Murray:  In that case again, there was never a challenge from, the Division never made any findings on that.  The context of the Beecher case was, can you elevate more than one from fifth place for the top fou, I know this court is very familiar with it.  You decided it.
Chief Justice Carney:  Absolutely.  But the Division’s briefing at the Superior Court there has multiple references to, for example on page 17 of his opposition to his motion below, “Mr. Hafner is qualified.  He correctly completed his declaration of candidacy.  That was as a Democrat. That was what he was listed ultimately, as a Democrat on the ballot.
Murray:  I also don’t believe there was any question    as a Democrat out of state.  Here again I would say that if the determination regarding how Mr Sullivan goes on the ballot that he doesn’t like,  he does have a right to challenge it.  I’d hate to do it, but he does have a right to challenge it.  We don’t deny that.    
Chief Justice Carney:  You may have noticed that the time is running short?
Murray:  There’s no question about that, Madame Chief Justice and I would also  like to echo what Mr. Robinson said that we appreciate both Judge Matthews below and this court’s expeditious hearing here.  We would ask the court, if it decides Mr. Sullivan has to go on the ballot, that it remand and let the division make the determination about how he goes on the ballot. If the court is unwilling to do that, we ask that the court direct us to do that, but we don’t think that’s this courts place"

I tried to call the number listed for Mr. Sullivan on the other sample ballot, but, understandably, it's blocking callers.  Will he take advantage of the appeal that Mr. Murray mentioned?  We'll see.  

Is this worth all the time we've spent on it?  The Republicans seem to think so.  Sen. Sullivan is listed as one of the more vulnerable Republican US Senators.  Having Republcan next to his name probably would get Daniel J. more votes.  If Sen. Sullivan is not reelected and a few other incumbent Republican senators lose, the US Senate would become majority Democratic and that would greatly change the direction of the country.  So it is a big deal.  

Related Posts:


Monday, June 29, 2026

Alaska Division Of Elections v Daniel J. Sullivan At Supreme Court

AK Div of Elections v. Daniel J. Sullivan live at www.ktoo.org/gavel

Depending on whether I'm looking at the clock on my laptop, phone, or watch, it is now 10:07, 10:15, or 10:10 and I have the screen up but nothing has happened yet.  Oh, yes - now it says delayed start.  

[Screenshot from KTOO Gavel Alaska]  
 

Not sure what that means.  I was told the courtroom wouldn't be open today and I assumed it meant everyone was zooming in.  That was the case of the Superior Court hearing Thursday - none of the participants were there live, including the judge, but the courtroom was open and there were about a dozen people in the gallery.  

10:22 - Delay notice gone, Gavel banging.

Oh dear.  My notes are pretty sketchy.  I'm not sure I should leave them up.  The video is supposed to be up for anyone to listen to.  Let me try to get the gist up and then I'll decide whether my notes should go up as well.  

Basically, Chris Murray, attorney for the Division of Elections, began arguing that Sullivan is on the ballot to confuse the voters and so should be removed, and the justices are asking where it says that's a reason for taking him off the ballot.  

Aren't the voters smart enough?

Murray is standing hard that Sullivan was on the ballot only to confuse the voters and the Court keeps questioning him about that.  

[Left to right starting with top row:
Susan M. Carney, Chief Justice, Justice Jennifer Henderson;  Second row: Justice Jude Pate, Justice Aimee A. Oravec;  Attorney for Div of Elections: Chris Murray;
Third row:  Attorney for Daniel J. Sullivan] [Screenshot from KTOO Gavel Alaska]

[It was impossible for me to read their names correctly from the screen.  They were just too small, though clearer than the screenshot above.]


The justices seemed to come down pretty hard on that point.  

They also  questioned Jeffrey Robinson closely when it was his turn.  

My sense is that the decision to bump Daniel J. Sullivan from the ballot will not prevail.  That leaves questions about how his name will appear and how much the court will direct how his name will appear or whether they will leave it up to the Division of Elections.  

Some of the questions about the name:

  1. Will it be Dan Sullivan, Daniel J. Sullivan?  Dan J. Sullivan?  His attorney seemed to want it to be as close to Sen. Sullivan's name as possible, while still be distinguishable.  
  2. Will he be designated as a Republican?  It seems that he did officially change his party to Republican and so the Division would have to use that, but I'm not certain.
  3. Will the Supreme Court tell the Division how to write his name and party, or leave that up to the discretion of the Division of Elections?  This wasn't clear.  Both attorneys said they trusted the Division to be professional.  Justice Matthews of the Superior Court instructed them.  I'm not sure that the Supreme Court will do the same.  Though there is very little time between now and when they start printing ballots tomorrow.  If the Division butchers his name and party designation, there will be no time to appeal.  
They promised to get the order out very quickly, but the opinion explaining their decision would come later.  

The recording of the session is up on KTOO Gavel Alaska and I've embedded it below so you can check my understanding of what's left with what they said.  I'll try to do the same.  

You should be able to click on the play button and listen yourself and I'll not post my sketchy notes of they arguments.



Chief Justice Carney at the end:  An extraordinary schedule.  We greatly appreciate your depth of arguments.  We will do our best to get at least an order out, will take longer to get opinion out.  Apologize for my computer,  Recessed.  

11:20 am


Related Posts


Sunday, June 28, 2026

Supreme Court Hearing On Daniel J. Sullivan v Alaska Division of Elections Appeal On Zoom Only

 I sent in an application to use my camera at the Alaska Supreme Court chambers tomorrow for the hearing. 

I got this email back from Meredith Montgomery, who, among other things, does media relations for the Alaska Supreme Court.  She's working on Sunday!

"The oral argument will be on ZOOM only; the courtroom will NOT be open. To watch, please tune into KTOO’s Gavel TV, which can be found at www.ktoo.org/gavel. In addition to being able to watch live, the argument will be archived immediately for viewing at any time in the future. If you are going to reproduce images from a screen shot, the “KTOO” watermark must be visible or attribution to KTOO given."

Related posts:


Friday, June 26, 2026

It's Almost 7pm -I Can't Find The Sullivan Decision - [Update - His Name Goes Back On The Ballot]

Yesterday Judge Matthews promised to have his decision completed by 4:30pm today.  From what I can tell (I expected lots of media outlets to be posting what he decided by the time I got back from my bike ride at 5:30pm.  Nada) he seems not to have communicated that decision to the world yet.  Maybe the lawyers have it.  It's not on the list of files on the court's "Most Requested Case Files" 

[UPDATE June 26, 2026 9pm - there are two more items just added to this list:

One is the judge's 32 page decision, explaining everything in detail before concluding:

"In summary, the Division's decision to exclude Mr. Sullivan from the primary ballot because it determined his declaration was not filed "in order to declare an actual good-faith candidacy for the Office of the United States Senator" was not based upon the constitutional requirements of Article l § 3, the Alaska statutes governing elections, or regulations promulgated by the Division.  Instead, the decision was based upon a new, previously unstated, "good-faith" criteria.  In addition, the Director's assertion that Mr. Sullivan seeks to confuse or misguide voters is not supported by a preponderance of evidence.  Instead, the Division accepted at face-value the assertions of the complaint and disregarded Mr. Sullivan's assertions. 

The Final Decision of the Division of Elections is VACATED.  Mr. Dan J. Sullivan is declared to be an eligible candidate for the office of United States Senator.  The Division shall include his name and affiliation with the Republican Party on the ballot for the August 18, 2026, primary election."

There's still 31 and a half pages for the attorney's on both sides to review, and for the State's attorney's to write in their appeal to the Supreme Court.  The clock is ticking to ballot printing deadline.]   

Everything else seems to be there.  You can even listen to the Oral Argument audio recording (second from the bottom.)


This is an important case.  Not just for Alaska, but for the US.  The initial complaint against Daniel J. Sullivan appearing on the ballot was filed by the National Republican Senatorial Committee.  The following two complaints were made by the Alaska Republican Party. The Dunleavy administration has frequently brought in Lower 48 attorneys to argue cases.  I suspect that in addition to trying to protect Republican Senator Sullivan in a close election, this is also a test case for getting unwanted challengers off of ballots around the country.   

For this case he's brought in the law firm of First and Fourteenth (for the Constitutional Amendments, not a street location.)  Chris Murray's bio at his law firm's website says:

"When the case is both controversial and has potentially significant impacts on the public, clients call Chris. His unique combination of experience in commercial and public law matters allows him to advise on and litigate high-stakes issues from emergency actions in elections and political matters to strategic commercial and public litigation involving issues of first impression or novel fact patterns. Chris represents a broad range of clients including businesses, political parties, trade associations, nonprofits, and even individuals in high-profile matters, both in trial and appeals. He advises on and regularly litigates federal and state constitutional issues touching on public policy, in contexts ranging from election recounts to strategic litigation against governments to preparing amicus briefs for appellate courts.

Chris also regularly advises clients on strategy for political participation and compliance with federal and state political disclosure laws."

The Alaska Current gives more on his right wing credentials

So it's probably better for the decision to come late, if it isn't right yet.  Anyone who's had to write something on a deadline, knows the pressure.  In this case, the deadline was one the judge imposed on himself.  

When I hear of a decision I'll add it to this post.   


Related posts:

June 22, 2026 Senator Dan Sullivan Does Not Want To Run Against Dan Sullivan [UPDATE] 

June 23, 2026 The Dan J Sullivan Removal From Ballot Hearing

June 25, 2026  Daniel J. Appeal Of Division Of Elections Decision Plays Out In Nearly Empty Court Room

June 26, 2026 It's Almost 7pm -I Can't Find The Sullivan Decision - [Update - His Name Goes Back On The Ballot]  (Current post that you're reading)

June 28, 2026

Monday, June 22, 2026

Senator Dan Sullivan Does Not Want To Run Against Dan Sullivan [UPDATE]

 [UPDATE:  Live Legislative Hearing on now (June 22, 2026 noon)  

https://www.ktoo.org/video/gavel/joint-house-judiciary-state-affairs-committee-2026061045/?eventID=2026061045


Daniel S. Sullivan is the junior US Senator for Alaska.  (Lisa Murkowski is the senior Senator).

Petersburg, Alaska resident Daniel J. Sullivan filed to run for the US Senate near the end of the filing period.  

Senator Daniel S Sullivan was not happy.  

"Sen. Sullivan has complained that Sullivan from Petersburg is a “sham candidate” and says his challenger is intentionally misleading voters to benefit a ranked-choice vote for Democratic candidate and former Alaska U.S. House Representative, Mary Peltola." (From the Alaska Beacon)

I'd note that the primary election is an open primary - all candidates for the same office are on one ballot.  It is NOT a ranked choice vote.  Voters get one vote only.  The top four candidates go on to the general election ballot, which is a ranked choice election.  

The qualifications to run for the US Senate in Alaska (from 2005 document on the State of Alaska Division of Elections webpage on qualifications): 

STATE OF ALASKA

DIVISION OF ELECTIONS

QUALIFICATIONS FOR HOLDING OFFICE

STATEWIDE CANDIDATES are those seeing the office of United States Senator, United States Representative, Governor or Lieutenant Governor.  The qualifications for these offices are as follows:

        United States Senator

  • 30 years of age;
  • citizen of the United States for 9 years; and 
  • an inhabitant of the state from which elected.
[Blogspot was being fussy and not letting me post the screenshot of the document, so I copied it here.]

About the Senate & the U.S. Constitution | Qualifications
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 3]"

If you look carefully, you will note that the language of the State and of the US Constitution are slightly different.  The US Constitution sets the criteria, not the State of Alaska.  

  1. The State language is pretty straightforward and writes the qualifications in a positive way while the Constitution frames the qualifications negatively:  "No Person shall be ..."
  2. The State says 30 years of age while the Constitution  makes it clear that that is the minimum age.
  3. The State says "an inhabitant of the state from which elected"  while the Constitution "[No person shall be a Senator who shall not,] when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen."

Keep number 3 in mind.  It becomes relevant later in the post when I write about Carol Hafner.

I'd also note that the Governor of Alaska and his Lt Governor are Trumpy Republicans and that the Lt. Governor's office is in charge of elections.  The head of the Division of Elections is appointed by the Governor or the Lt. Governor - I'm not sure which and I don't think it matters in this situation.  

On June 8, 2026, the Republican Lt. Governor, whose office is responsible for elections in Alaska, wrote a letter to candidate Daniel J. Sullivan: 

"RE:  Evaluation of Your Declaration of Candidacy for US Senate"

The letter has a long list of questions they have about his intent as a candidate, which they believe is to confuse voters.   

On June 15, there was a second letter  from the Alaska Division of Elections Website (You can read the whole letter at the link, I'm just going to give you the reasons why the Director decided to take his name off the ballot:

"On review of the complaints and other information in the Division’s possession, I conclude that your declaration of candidacy was not properly filed with the Division because it was not filed in order to declare an actual good-faith candidacy for the office of United States Senator, but was instead filed with a purpose to confuse or mislead and to thereby compromise the ballot’s fairness or neutrality. I highlight several facts that taken together bring me to this conclusion.

(1) You requested to access the ballot under the name “Dan Sullivan” even though it appears from Division records that you have never registered to vote or sought ballot access under this name. 

Our records indicate that you are registered to vote under the name “Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr.” That you chose the occasion of your declaration of candidacy for U.S. Senate to seek ballot access under a name you have not used in your interactions with the Division suggests—and in combination with the additional facts I outline in this letter leads me to conclude—that you are seeking to confuse yourself with another candidate in the race, the incumbent Senator Dan Sullivan, rather than distinguish yourself from him. Indeed, you yourself appeared to be confused when you initially emailed the Division asking to be listed on the ballot as “Dan S. Sullivan.”“S” is Senator Sullivan’s middle initial, not yours.

(2) You requested to be designated on the ballot as affiliated with the Republican Party. Until two days before you filed your declaration of candidacy, you had never—according to the Division’s records—been affiliated with the Republican Party in Alaska. Of course, under Alaska law, you are free to change your party affiliation. This said, that you chose to change your affiliationtom the same political party—one you’d never affiliated with before—as the incumbent Senator immediately before filing a declaration of candidacy in which you asked to access the ballot under the same name – in a shortened form you’d never used before - as the incumbent Senator strongly suggests an intent to confuse yourself with the incumbent Senator rather than to distinguish yourself from him.

(3) Your public campaign website (https://www.sullivanforsenate.com/) uses a format, color scheme and overall theme similar to the public website for Senator Sullivan’s campaign (https://dansullivanforalaska.com/). While the Division takes no position on whether you have appropriated the intellectual property of Senator Sullivan’s campaign, the similarity— particularly in light of the other facts I outline in this letter—appears to be deliberate. This again suggests an intention not to distinguish yourself from the incumbent Senator as any candidate genuinely seeking office would do, but to confuse Alaskans as to which “Dan Sullivan” is which.

(4) A political consultant you have admitted is working with your campaign is a known longtime supporter of Democratic candidates including the primary Democratic challenger to Senator Sullivan. This consultant’s work on your behalf is, in isolation, innocuous. Alongside the other facts I have catalogued in this letter, however, it suggests a determined effort and a deliberate attempt to use the similarity of your name to confuse Alaska voters in the upcoming primary election.

In light of these unique, and to my knowledge utterly unprecedented facts (circumstances unlike any previously presented to the Division), I am forced to conclude that your declaration of candidacy, in which you stated under oath that you “declare myself to be a candidate for the office of United States Senator” was not filed in good faith for the purpose of genuinely pursuing election as Alaska’s U.S. Senator. Rather, these facts force the conclusion that your declaration of candidacy was filed with the purpose of confusing or misleading the electorate and compromising the fairness of the ballot by attempting to access the ballot under a version you have never used (“Dan Sullivan”) and with a party affiliation (Republican) that you have never before professed. Indeed, I conclude that the preponderance of the evidence is that you chose this new nickname and party affiliation because that name and party affiliation happen to be the name and party affiliation of another candidate in the race. A declaration of candidacy filed for the purpose of confusing or misleading voters and compromising the fairness of the ballot is not properly filed as required by Alaska Statute 15.25.060. As such, I am unable to maintain your declaration of candidacy and I am de-certifying your candidacy for United States Senator. This decision is made pursuant to 15.25.042 and 6 AAC 25.260 along with other relevant provisions of law. Pursuant to 6 AAC 25.260(i), my determination in this matter is final. Although you have 30 days to appeal this decision, if you intend to challenge the decision and seek judicial relief in Alaska Superior Court to be placed on the ballot, be aware ballots are printed on June 28."

So, they did not find that he had lied in any of the material he submitted to the State Division of Elections.  

What they object to is that his "intent" is to mislead voters.  

They say he has never registered to vote as a "Republican" but they do not say how he registered.  Under Alaska law, you can register as "Undeclared" or "Non-partisan" as well as various parties.  "Undeclared" simply means you choose not to state your party preference.  Many people who vote Republican do that.  

They also say he is not registered as "Dan Sullivan" but as Daniel J. Sullivan.  They also don't share whether Sen. Dan Sullivan is registered that way or as Daniel S. Sullivan or something else.

The Anchorage Daily News editorial board on Sunday June 21, 2026 wrote a long and strong editorial stating that Dan may have had deceptive intentions but that the State qualifications (see above) do not include policing a candidate's intentions.  [The link maybe password protected.]

"Let’s not insult anyone’s intelligence here.

Dan J. Sullivan’s U.S. Senate campaign looks like a dirty trick, and most probably it is one. . .

Fine. But in the United States of America, people are allowed to run for office for bad reasons. They are allowed to run vanity campaigns, protest campaigns, spoiler campaigns, joke-adjacent campaigns and campaigns that make party leadership sweat through their Brooks Brothers vests.

That does not mean the Alaska Division of Elections gets to throw them off the ballot.

That is the line Director Carol Beecher, Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom and the Division of Elections crossed when Beecher issued her determination removing Dan J. Sullivan from the Aug. 18 primary ballot."


I would note that also on the list of candidates is a woman from South Dakota:

“I’ve flown over [Alaska],” said Carol Hafner, the South Dakota resident and Alaska Senate candidate. “As far as boots on the ground, that’s in my future.”

If we go by the Alaska Division of Elections website, she should be disqualified because she is not "an inhabitant of the state from which elected."  But that is why I also included the US Senate's definition which includes "when elected."  So you can run for the US House and the US Senate having never been in Alaska (or any other state you might want to run in) without having ever been to that state as long as you become an inhabitant "when elected."  

Hafner's son is also running for the Alaska US House seat while sentenced to 20 years in a New York prison.  He was already in prison when hee ran for the Alaska US House seat in 2024.  He came in sixth.  Only the top four candidates go on to the ranked choice general election in November.  But the third and fourth place candidates dropped out and the fifth and sixth place candidates moved into the top four.   At that time the Democrats complained (Hafner was listed as a Democrat) that since he was in prison who could not be an Alaska resident if elected.  The Alaska Supreme Court ruled if I recall correctly, there was always a chance he could be paroled if elected and kept him on the ballot. I'd also note that the 3rd place candidate who dropped out was Republican Nancy Dahlstrom, the current Lt. Governor who wrote the initial letter about the investigation to Daniel J.  Here's the saga of that election.

But clearly Carol Hafner's 'intent' is just as deceptive if not more so than Daniel J. Sullivan's.  She lives in South Dakota.  Is she really going to move to Alaska if she wins?  There are 14 candidates on the ballot for the US Senate seat.  Daniel J. is now listed as deleted.  There is no way that Carol Hafner will end up in the top four, so she'll never move to Alaska. Sullivan and the Alaska Republican Party are not concerned about her.  

But if Daniel J. Sullivan can be removed because his intent was  not  

"to declare an actual good-faith candidacy for the office of United States Senator, but was instead filed with a purpose to confuse or mislead and to thereby compromise the ballot’s fairness or neutrality" 

then the state can start questioning the intent of any candidate.  

Why not ask the State to remove Mary Peltola, the Democrat who has served a term as our  representative in the US House?.  After all, her intent to is unseat Sen. Daniel S Sullivan which, underlying all the Division of Election's language, is why they are bumping Daniel J off the ballot.

I'm sure that Daniel S Sullivan knows this is illegal.  Intent is not one of the qualifications listed in the US Constitution or the Alaska Division of Elections criteria to run for US Senate.  

But note that as I write this, it is June 22, 2026.  The Director of the Division of Elections says in her letter that Daniel J. has 30 days to file an appeal, but that the primary ballot will be printed on June 28. In six days!  

They are know they will lose in court, but that the ballot will have already been printed for the August 18, 2026 primary  election.  

I have no doubt that the judge who gets this case will also know that is their strategy and may well rule against the Division of Elections AND demand that a new ballot be printed.  

If that happens, the taxpayers of Alaska, not the head of the Division of Elections or the Alaska Republican Party, will pay.  

It also opens up the likelihood that the Division of Elections will blame the court for any problems due to having reprinted the ballots, after their scheduled deadline.  

I would say that no matter Daniel J's intent, it's clear he qualifies for the ballot.  The real problematic intent is with Daniel S. Sullivan, the Alaska Republican Party, and the Division of Elections who know that "honorable intent" is not a qualification for the office of US Senator.  And are pretty familiar with dishonorable intent.  


Follow up posts:

June 22, 2026 Senator Dan Sullivan Does Not Want To Run Against Dan Sullivan [UPDATE] 


Saturday, June 06, 2026

Alaska's Many Candidates For Governor

We have until the August 18 primary election to find out about all these people running for Governor and Lt. Governor.  After that it will be down to the four top vote getters for the November 3 general election. Here's a quick look.  The information on the candidates is based on  the Division of Elections. Two had "election pamphlet information."  Those links are included.

I color coded the candidate parties and numbered them.  

Blue=Democrat   Red=Republican  Maroon=Nonpartisan  Orange=Undeclared

11 Gov candidates are men,  6 are women (when names were ambiguous, I checked)

12 Lt. Gov candidates are men, 5 are women

There's one all woman team, 8 all men teams

Candidate 18's status is still pending

The list was in alphabetical order on the state site, so I didn't change that.  I added the numbers to make it easier.  

1.  Begich, Tom / Hnilicka, Julia
(Registered Democrat) (Certified)      



2.  Bishop, Click (Registered Republican) / Schuerch, Greta (Nonpartisan)
(Certified)


3.  Bronson, Dave / Church, Josh
(Registered Republican) (Certified
(907) 301-9995
Email: info@davebronson.com
Website: http://www.davebronson.com

4.  Claman, Matt / Skeel, Sarah
(Registered Democrat) (Certified)
(907) 350-3105
Email: matt@mattclaman.com
Website: http://www.mattclaman.com


5.  Crum, Adam / Craig, Bob
(Registered Republican) (Certified)
(907) 903-5058
Email: info@adamcrum.com
Website: http://www.adamcrum.com


6.  Devries, Edna / Hightower, George B.
(Registered Republican) (Certified)
[no contact info up yet]


7.  Dewitt, Meda / Steere, Christopher
(Nonpartisan) (Certified)

8.  Heilala, Matt A. / Sumner, Jesse M.
(Registered Republican) (Certified)
(907) 250-9823
Email: mheilala@gmail.com
Website: http://www.matt4governor.com


9.  Hughes, Shelley / Gettys, Blake
(Registered Republican) (Certified)

10.  Kreiss-Tomkins, Jonathan S. “JKT (Registered Democrat) / Johnson, Zac (Nonpartisan)
(Certified)
(907) 623-8331
Email: info@jktforak.com
Website: http://www.jktforak.com


11.  Kroll, Henry F. “Hank” (Registered Republican) / Nicholson, Tommy R. III (Undeclared)
(907) 740-0386
Email: hankkroll@gmail.com
Website: http://www.hankkroll.com

12.  McGuire, Lesil (Registered Republican) / Rexford, Elizabeth (Undeclared)
(Certified)
(907) 351-8060
Email: lesil@me.com
Website: http://www.leislmcguire4governor.com  [Link doesn't work as I'm posting]

13.  Parkin, James W. “JP4” (Registered Republican) / Greer, Ramadhani “Ram” (Registered Democrat)
(907) 617-1954
Email: james.parkin@jp4gov.org
Website: http://www.jp4gov.org

14. Payne, Destry J. Sr. / Silvers, Cliff  - (Payne's website says Alaskan Party)
(Undeclared) (Certified)

15.  Taylor, Treg / English, Candi
(Registered Republican) (Certified
(907) 673-4881
Email: info@tregforak.com
Website: http://www.tregforak.com


16.  Walker, Bill / Hoffbeck, Randy
(Nonpartisan) (Certified)


17.  Wilson, Bernadette M. / Shower, Michael K.
(Registered Republican) (Certified)


18.  Gilbert, Michael Loren / Hickel, Timothy Dean
(Registered Republican) (Pending)
(907) 717-5483
Email: gilbert.michael16@yahoo.com


Over the years I've had the chance to take pictures of five of these candidates.  These range from 2010 through 2024.  Can you match the pictures to the candidates listed above?  Put your guesses in the comments.  Match the letters to the numbers.