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.]

The US Senate lists the qualifications this way:

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.  

Why Was Stephen Colbert Told To Pull James Talarico Interview?

Fascist states censor. They want to control what people believe to be true.  

Stephen Colbert interviewed Texas state representative James Talarico, a Democratic candidate for US Senate in Texas.  His opponent in the upcoming primary is Member of Congress Jasmine Crockett.  Both appear to be strong candidates.  Both have Democratic detractors.  Or bots doing it.  I've seen social media posts saying Talarico isn't really a Democrat and will be another Fetterman.  And there are those that say a Black woman can't win in Texas.

But, apparently the White House doesn't want Talarico to be the Democratic candidate.  Watch the Colbert show where Colbert tells us that CBS didn't let him play the Talarico interview, but that you can see it on Youtube.  (By the way, Colbert did interview Jasmine Crockett July 2025.)  (Googling "Colbert interview with Jasmine Crockett July 2025" gave me four pages of links to stories about the Talarico interview!!  I had to work to find the link to the Crockett interview.)

And then watch the interview that was blocked, on Youtube.  

I'm guessing that the Republicans are more concerned that a white guy who's a Christian pastor will be more more competitive against the eventual GOP candidate than a fiery, smart Black woman.  Or they think that it will be easier (and more fun) for them to smear the Black lady than the choir boy.  But there's backlash against Talarico from the left too.

"There's a definite battle waged on behalf of
the old guard "dems" who believe that a safe
white man is always the answer. . ."

I'm not sure they're wrong.  But I'm also not sure they're right.  

We've been told that Texas was going to go blue with Beto O'Rourke and then with Colin Allred , both formidable candidates.  So I'm not counting my Senators before they're elected.  

But Trump's heavy handed misadministration has set up 2026 to be the year of the Democrats. One could well argue that if it doesn't happen this year, it's not going to happen.  But it will eventually, given that the demographic shifts continue.  And that's one reason ICE is trying to deport as many people as possible.  

But non-citizens can't vote and don't vote (no matter how loudly the GOP yell about the need for every voter to prove they are citizens), so at this point they aren't thinning the rolls through deportation.  Though the SAVE Act would have a massive impact on elections.  [The SAVE Act link goes to a post from May last year, and there have been some changes, but you can see this is intended to prevent as many people as possible from voting, particularly those more likely to vote blue, like women.]

From what I've seen, both Talarico and Crockett are formidable candidates.  Will Talarico get more white Christians and maybe get votes from Republicans?  Possibly.  But will a white candidate cause Black voters to skip voting because he beat their bright and most in-your-face Black candidate?  Will Crockett get out the Black vote that other candidates haven't reached?  

Step one is the primary, which has already begun in Texas.  From the Texas Newsroom via the Texas Standard:

"Texas voters can now cast their ballots early for the state’s March 3 party primaries. The results of these elections will determine who represents Republicans and Democrats on the ballot in November.

Despite the important role party primaries play in state politics, Texas has consistently seen low voter turnout for them. Take 2022, during the last midterm election year. During those primaries, only 3 million Texans cast ballots — just 17% percent of the state’s registered voters at the time.

Because relatively few of Texas’ more than 18 million eligible voters show up for these elections, that means those who do vote have an outsize influence on the Lone Star State’s political landscape."

Somewhat relevant to all this is the video below I came across of Texas Rep. Barbara Jordan telling us what impeachment is all about in 1974.  I've been a giant fan of Barbara Jordan since I first came across her about that time.  Just listen to the authority in her voice.  But with no condescension or sarcasm. (or am I missing it?)  If I were doing a movie that had God as a character, her voice would be perfect.  

The Term "Normalized" Has Become Normalized

Normalize, means to make something seem normal.  It's been used a lot recently to refer to events - like school shootings and outrageous Trump actions - that once would have been seen as totally unusual and demanding serious discussion and action.  

Here's the fourth definition on Merriam Webster's online dictionary:

4: to allow or encourage (something considered extreme or taboo) to become viewed as normal

The word normalize hasn't been used this way for a long time.  

Someone posited the question, "When and where did the new sense of "normalize" begin?" on English.stackexchange.com  (not exactly sure what that is, but the heading on the page is "English Language Usage" and it's dated 2020.)

One part of the answer was:

Merriam-Webster have “recently” addressed this matter of a very recent shift in focus or meaning in their article The New 'Normalize': Is the meaning of 'normalization' changing?:

"It will sometimes happen that a word suddenly appears everywhere. In the wake of the 2016 presidential election, two such words are currently in the ether: the verb normalize and its related noun, normalization."

This would suggest that Trump's behavior after being first elected was so unprecedented, broke so many norms and taboos, that people began using these terms.  

I think the term itself has been used so much itself, that it reinforces the idea that the once taboo is now normal.  

So what's the alternative?  

Everyone needs to contribute answers to this. I'd suggest that journalists simply have to continue acting shocked and adding statistics to show how terrible something is.  And continue to contrast behaviors to how things were in the past and to how things are in other countries.  

"President Trump continues to add to his presidential lying record, leaving all other presidents in the dust.  Today he said . . .Nixon resigned because Congressional Republicans told him he would be impeached after the recordings he made in the Oval Office proved that he had lied to the American people*."

*"Barry Goldwater thought that Nixon’s lying “was the crux” of his failure. That deceit was intended to obscure the overwhelming evidence that he had abused power and obstructed justice." (Source: LA Times)

The same is true of school shootings.  Journalists have to put them in context (so far beyond other nations; 

Source

"In 2019, gun injury became the leading cause of death among children aged birth to 19 years." etc.)  Journalists have to show the impacts on mothers and fathers, siblings, other students and teachers.  

Saying that "defying the courts has become normalized" merely confirms that the behavior is now within the bounds of normal, acceptable behavior.  

These behaviors are not 'normal'.  They still are taboo, even if the Supreme Court corruptly allows Trump to regularly violate the Constitution.  

Object to the word normalize and encourage people who use it   

1. to see that using the word confirms that the behavior is now acceptable, even if that isn't what they meant to do;
2. to call out the behavior as immoral, illegal, unconstitutional, and castigate those who have the power to stop it, but tolerate it - such as GOP members of Congress and the Supreme Court majority

ICE-Free Refugee Day Celebration (And More)

RAIS (Refugee Assistance and Immigration Services) is among the groups that help folks under the umbrella of Catholic Social Services in Anchorage,  (I'd also say I've never seen a trace of proselytizing  in any of the RAIS activities.)

Yesterday, Thursday, June 26, was the first day of their summer CSA program pick up.  That's Community Supported Agriculture - a program where consumers pay farmers upfront and then pick up fresh vegetables every week.  In Alaska, that is necessarily limited to summer.  

I first learned and blogged the term CSA in March 2009 when I was a volunteer with an NGO (non-governmental organization, what we call non-profit) in Chiangmai, Thailand.  Here's that post which talks about CSAs in general and what was happening in Chiangmai specifically.  

Because it was the first day of Grow North Farm's 2025 CSA distribution there was also a celebration for World Refugee day. with music, dancing, art activities, and food from around the world. (That sentence was more or less lifted and edited from the email I got from RAIS.

For the rest of the summer, in addition to the subscribers picking up their veggies, there will be booths where other refugee farmers will be selling their crops.  Here's a blog post from 2022 showing you the variety of things for sale. It's always colorful and people are often wearing the clothing they would wear in their original countries.  There are also people selling baked goods.  The one that captured me last summer - the Egyptian Kitchen - won't be here this summer.  They are in Egypt until fall.  Lots of folks will miss their incredible home made cookies.  

Yesterday, I only saw a couple of tents where people were selling veggies and preserved food.  Most of the booths were services available in Anchorage.  The library was there - my mind's going blank - and there were a number of groups with various arts and crafts activities for kids.  

I spent more time at the Choosing Our Roots table, because it was a group I knew nothing about.  This is Adam in the photo.  He's head of the Board of Directors.  Later, the Executive Director Chami joined us.  Basically this groups helps queer youth find housing and get their feet on the ground.  They work with various groups including Alaska Housing, Alaska Children's Trust, Covenant House, and RAIS.

'Youth' means about 15 to 25.  Chami said she herself had been homeless with a baby and worked herself out of that situation and is now a social worker (I'm pretty sure that's what she said) and a licensed therapist (I'm sure she said that).  So she can counsel these youth with first hand experience of what they are going through.  

This was a very colorful (in the literal sense of that word) event and a photographer's buffet.  Except it wasn't.  Many of the people, for cultural reasons, do not want to be photographed.  

And as the title hints, two different people I mentioned this event to responded, "So ICE will be there?"

So no, I don't want to give ICE any assistance in identifying potential targets.  

I took only a few pictures.  Of course I should have taken pictures of the vegetables, but I wasn't thinking.  We got, as our CSA email listed:  

• Radish
• Spinach
• Sorrel
• Bok Choi
• Either Chamsur or Arugula

Don't know what Chamsur is?  Well, the RAIS email tells us not only what it is, but also how to use it.

"Chamsur is the Nepalese word for Garden Cress - a green which is popular in mountainous regions of Nepal and Afghanistan. Nepalese farmers brought seeds to Fresh International Gardens to experiment with growing Chamsur in Alaska - it proved to be well suited to Anchorage and has grown at the farm every year since! 

Include garden cress in any soup, salad, or sandwich for a tangy flavor. The taste is very similar to that of arugula, so it works great in any wraps, sandwiches, or salads! Add this Green Salad with Garden Cress to your list of tasty summer salads! Or use both your spinach and chamsur in this Chamsur Palungo recipe."

Don't know what to do with sorrel?  Another hint from the email:

"Sorrel is another tangy green, bright and lemony and makes a lovely Ukrainian Sorrel Soup - perfect for a rainy summer day."

I did take a few pictures and I've smudged out the faces of kids and people who might not want ICE to know they were there.  

And if ICE was there, they were unmasked and unarmed and just chilling with everyone else.  Here are a couple of pictures.  

I'm trying folks.  I've got pieces of about five posts that haven't been posted.  So many other things are luring me from the blog.  

I'm trying to decide if I really want to duplicate last summer's 1000 miles (1600+ kilometers) of biking.  I'm at 740k so far.  (That's slightly ahead of last summer.  But there were bike-able days in March this year, and last year I was biking hard the second half of the summer.)

I'm doing Duolingo Turkish everyday.  Sometimes I feel like it's hopeless because it's focused on everything but my speaking.  And while I'm gathering vocabulary and a loose understanding of the grammar (and all the fascinating but maddening suffixes which change tense, change who is acting, indicate coming and going, and many other conditions), I don't think I can actually use it to make oral conversation.  Speaking uses other muscles and parts of the brain than reading, writing, and even listening.  But Turkey is the last place on my list of places I promised myself I'd go to another time.  I passed it up while I was a student in Germany and decided more time in Greece for then, and Istanbul later.  Later is going to be never if I don't do it soon.  

And now I'm taking letters every Monday afternoon to my two Senators and my member of Congress.  I'm trying to find different ways to try to break through to them.  But I do believe that numbers matter to legislators, so I encourage others in Anchorage to join the group.  Just go to their offices (510 L Street for the Senators, 6th and 7th floors, and half a block away (1016 W Sixth Ave Suite #406) between 4pm and 5pm on Mondays.  There's no formal gathering, just people coming and going.  And if you miss a week or two, not a problem.  But I am getting to know the staff.  Begich has a second office in Fairbanks.  And Murkowski and Sullivan offices in Fairbanks, Juneau, Ketchikan, Matsu, Soldotna.  So you folks can also make weekly drop-offs.  

Biking gives me a chance to see what's new and changing in Anchorage, so I have pics on some of those things to put up.  I did post about the closing of Lake Otis at 42nd.  Lake Otis is back working, but work on 42nd continues.

There's somebody working on an ordinance to change local Anchorage elections to ranked choice voting (the State has that, though Republicans are trying again to do away with it) and I'm trying to get more info on who is doing this and how it's going.  I know an Assembly committee had it on their agenda this week.  This would be a great improvement.  

Frustration with Democratic establishment and their problems with the bright young, articulate, members of their party, culminating, most recently, with the Islamaphobic responses to Mamdani's apparent primary win in New York.  For example. Christopher Bouzy, the creator of Twitter alternative Spoutible, writes, "Democratic Leadership Told Rep. Jasmine Crockett She's Too Black and Too Loud."

Gardening and regularly visiting the Alaska Botanical Garden as part of one of my bike routes.  

Don't despair.  Find beauty every day.  Get outside and move your body.  (The biking and gardening) Find good folks to be around.  Find ways to resist.  

There are organizations offering lists of ways to fight back daily.  Taking action is the best antidote for hopelessness.  Here are two that send me regular (not daily) emails with list of ways I can resist:

Peoples Action Institute  

The Digital Drumbeat

The Save Act Will Essentially Disenfranchise A Lot Of US Voters

 

One reason I haven't blogged as much as usual:  I'm still having problems loading photos from my phone to my laptop.  After I chatted with Apple (allegedly a real person in the Philippines), I got it to work.  But the very next time it didn't again.  Also we were in LA and San Diego for a memorial for a high school friend.  I could have done some quick photo posts, but . . . the airdrop wasn't dropping.  And yes, I could probably load them onto the blog all on the phone, but I haven't tried doing that.  

So Tuesday evening, I brought my Canon camera to the Marston Auditorium to hear about the SAVE Act - presented by the ACLU, the League of Women's Voters, and the Native American Fund.  That camera has an SD card and I have an attachment that lets me plug it into the laptop.

Mara Kimel, from the ACLU introduced the first speaker who had just flown up from LA.  Xavier Presad outlined key problem areas of the Act

What he didn't say, in so many words, but what I took from all the specific issues, was that this is a giant voter suppression act.  Which makes sense coming from this administration and, presumably, the folks at the Heritage Foundation.  They've been worried about the changing US demographics for years. It's why they talk about The Great Replacement Theory. And some folks said 2024 was the last year demographics gave the Republicans a chance to win elections.  Which is why, in part, the president is trying to export a million people.  And import white South Africans.  I'd note that voting by non-citizens is rare, but Republicans seem to want to make people believe it's common, just as they want to make people believe most immigrants are here illegally, are rapits, terrorists, and or murderers.  All to justify flying kidnapped people (citizens and non-citizens) to gulags outside the US.  But this is all my take, not what Xavier said.  

Xavier Presad

Xavier is an ACLU attorney "focused on voting and protecting democracy."  

You can view the SAVE Act here.

Key issues Xavier and the other panelists raised:

1.  People required to prove they are US citizens to register to vote, they'll need:

• birth certificate
• passport

Voters' ids must have names that are the same as the name on their birth certificates, or be able to prove they officially changed their name.  Anyone who has changed their name - adoptees, married women, for example - will need one of the  IDs above to register to vote.  

While Tribal IDs are listed in the ACT, many, if not most, do not include place of birth and a photo. So they won't be valid. 

Real IDs from many states have the same problem.  

A significant number of USians do not have passports and getting a birth certificate takes several weeks at least and costs $15 on up, depending on which state.  So essentially, anyone trying to prove their nationality will have to get started at least a month before an election or they likely won't get their documentation back on time.  

Another section, they said, makes it possible to remove people from the rolls without notification shortly before the election.  So people will show up to vote, thinking they are registered, and won't have any of the documentation of their citizenship.  And won't be able to vote.   See language from the Act below on acceptable ID.  

The panel after Prasad's talk

2.  Registration has to be done in person.  Everyone has to go to an election office to register to vote.  This ends automatic registration for people who get a driver's license and registering online or having people authorized to register people at events or in front of the supermarket.  For Alaska, it ends automatic voter registration when you apply for a Permanent Fund dividend.  This puts a much bigger burden on election offices and on people who do not live near election offices.  Alaska has only 6 Election Offices - Juneau, Anchorage, Fairbanks, Nome, Wasilla, and Kenai, which is a satellite office of the Wasilla office.  This will make it much harder for rural Alaskans, on or off the road system, to register.  Ir would even act like a poll tax for those who have fly to register.  People in Tok would have to drive to Wasilla or Fairbanks.  And they have to be there during office hours, so it could mean taking off work.  

3.  

Panelist Heather Annett, League of Women Voters

Criminalization of poll workers

People who do not appear on the precinct rolls who say they are registered but do not have proper identification (proving they are US citizens), can be given a provisional ballot to vote.  But the SAVE Act makes it possible to criminally prosecute a poll worker and carries up to five years in prison. 

This seems like it's designed to discourage poll workers from giving provisional ballots.  It also seems to be a way to intimidate potential poll workers.  If you look at the list of acceptable ID's how can an election worker be sure they are authentic, or that the state seal is authentic, or that it was filed with the office responsible to for vital statistics?  Finding enough poll workers is already a problem due, in part, to harassment by GOP voters.

4.  Unfunded Mandate.  The Constitution gives the States some control over elections

Panelist Kristen Gerbatsch,
Native American Rights Fund

"Article I  Legislative Branch

Section 4 Congress

Clause 1 Elections Clause

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

Congress has the power to make changes.   

But the bill doesn't authorize any funding for the massive changes states will have to make to the ways they register voters, check for proof of citizenship, and training for staff and poll workers on all the new regulations.  I couldn't find a cost estimate, though I believe one of the speakers did give one. 

Panelist Riza Smith, Action Alaska, Vet

5.  Costs for people (especially rural folks) to register.  This was alluded to in the section 2 - in person registration, but needs to be emphasized for Alaskans, many of whom live off the road system.  They will have to fly or take a ship to get to a location that has an election office.  And while some people may visit one of the six towns with an election office during the year, they have to go to the office during regular working hours.  So weekends are out.  For many this will require taking off work.  If they're, say in Anchorage, for medical care, getting to the election office to register could be a real burden.  A large number of the people living off the road system are Alaska Natives.  For example:

Kayak ad for Anchorage to Dutch Harbor flight
$1408 round trip

The SAVE Act passed the House on April 8, 2025.  It goes next to the Senate.   Conservatives have been eroding Voting Rights for a while.  Shelby County v. Holder began a wholesale attack on voting rights.

Appendix 1:  Acceptable ID

From the SAVE Act as of April 10, 2025 after passage in the House:

(1)

A form of identification issued consistent with the requirements of the REAL ID Act of 2005 that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States.

(2)

A valid United States passport.

(3)

The applicant's official United States military identification card, together with a United States military record of service showing that the applicant's place of birth was in the United States.

(4)

A valid government-issued photo identification card issued by a Federal, State or Tribal government showing that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States.

(5)

A valid government-issued photo identification card issued by a Federal, State or Tribal government other than an identification described in paragraphs (1) through (4), but only if presented together with one or more of the following:

(A)

A certified birth certificate issued by a State, a unit of local government in a State, or a Tribal government which—

(i)

was issued by the State, unit of local government, or Tribal government in which the applicant was born;

(ii)

was filed with the office responsible for keeping vital records in the State;

(iii)

includes the full name, date of birth, and place of birth of the applicant;

(iv)

lists the full names of one or both of the parents of the applicant;

(v)

has the signature of an individual who is authorized to sign birth certificates on behalf of the State, unit of local government, or Tribal government in which the applicant was born;

(vi)

includes the date that the certificate was filed with the office responsible for keeping vital records in the State; and

(vii)

has the seal of the State, unit of local government, or Tribal government that issued the birth certificate.

(B)

An extract from a United States hospital Record of Birth created at the time of the applicant's birth which indicates that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States.

(C)

A final adoption decree showing the applicant’s name and that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States.

(D)

A Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a citizen of the United States or a certification of the applicant’s Report of Birth of a United States citizen issued by the Secretary of State.

(E)

A Naturalization Certificate or Certificate of Citizenship issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other document or method of proof of United States citizenship issued by the Federal government pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act.

(F)

An American Indian Card issued by the Department of Homeland Security with the classification ‘KIC’.

Appendix 2:  State Requirements in the Act

(3)

State requirements  [this is only partial]

Each State shall take affirmative steps on an ongoing basis to ensure that only United States citizens are registered to vote under the provisions of this Act, which shall include the establishment of a program described in paragraph (4) not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this subsection.

(4)

Program described

A State may meet the requirements of paragraph (3) by establishing a program under which the State identifies individuals who are not United States citizens using information supplied by one or more of the following sources:

(A)

The Department of Homeland Security through the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) or otherwise.

(B)

The Social Security Administration through the Social Security Number Verification Service, or otherwise.

(C)

State agencies that supply State identification cards or driver’s licenses where the agency confirms the United States citizenship status of applicants.

(D)

Other sources, including databases, which provide confirmation of United States citizenship status.

I'd note, that the Privacy Act of 1974 requires all agencies that collect personal information from citizens and non-citizens to state on the document how that information will be used.  The agencies are not allowed to share that information with anyone or any agency not listed.  This would be a complete violation of the Privacy Act.  

The Save Act has not been passed by the US Senate. It appears that it will face obstacles in the Senate.  But the more people express their opposition the easier it will be for GOP senators to oppose the bill.  You can contact your US Senators here.

The Blind Men And The Elephant - And the House Rules Committee's Live 1 am Hearing

 I'm listening to the live House Rules Committee hearing on the "The One Big Beautiful Bill" (as the Republicans call it) at 10:30 pm Alaska time.  That makes it 2:30am in Washington DC.  As Democratic and Republican House members take turns;  It's as though the Democrats and the Republicans are talking about completely different bills. 

It made me think of the story of the blind men and the elephant.  

“Hey, the elephant is a pillar,” said the first man who touched his leg.

“Oh, no! it is like a rope,” said the second man who touched the tail.

“Oh, no! it is like a thick branch of a tree,” said the third man who touched the trunk of the elephant.

“It is like a big hand fan” said the fourth man who touched the ear of the elephant.

“It is like a huge wall,” said the fifth man who touched the belly of the elephant.

“It is like a solid pipe,” Said the sixth man who touched the tusk of the elephant.

They began to argue about the elephant and everyone of them insisted that he was right. It looked

like they were getting agitated. A wise man was passing by and he saw this. He stopped and asked them, “What is the matter?” They said, “We cannot agree to what the elephant is like.” Each one of them told what he thought the elephant was like. The wise man calmly explained to them, “All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently because each one of you touched a different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all those features what you all said.”

From Medium

Giving the best interpretation, the Republicans and the Democrats, are talking about different parts of the bill.  One Republican said something like, "The Democrats don't want to support police and fire fighters.."  I don't know what those parts of the bill actually say, but if those aren't the parts the Democrats are complaining about.  

The Democrats are saying the bill:

1.  Destroys medicaid

2.  Gets rid of food assistance for children   5 million more hungry Americans

3.   So people making over $3 million a year will get hundreds of thousands of dollar cuts in their taxes.

But I'm not sure that conclusion in the blind men story is accurate when it says that everyone is right because everyone is describing a different part of the elephant.  

I'm inclined to believe that Democrats are doing a more accurate job of describing this bill.  Why?  Because this is Trump's bill and Trump lies more than all the previous presidents combined.  In just one day.  We also know that Trump has pushed hard on Republicans to vote for his bills and to support them.   But I know that die-hard Republicans would reject my interpretation.  We truly are living in completely different realities.  For instance, the Republicans are focused on the fact that Federal employees get a better pensions than private employees.  They don't mention that private employees tend to get paid more.  And even more importantly, that private companies have been cutting retirement benefits for their employees.  And they are succeeding in that because Congressional Republicans have weakened unions for 50 years.  And finally, Federal retirement systems should be the aspiration of private sector employees, and that may be one of the reasons private sector employers do not like Federal retirement systems.  

I also believe this because I was just at a public meeting hosted by the League of Women's Voters and the ACLU and the Native American Rights Fund, discussing the Save Act.  This Act being pushed by Republicans is essentially a voter suppression bill.  I'll get to that in the next post.  

And Democrats are citing Conservative think tanks like the Manhattan Institute and Moody's lower the US credit rating, that the bill will raise the debt significantly.  And they are quoting Republican Senators who say it will blow up the deficit.  

For those of you reading from other parts of the world, you can listen in if you find this right away.  I don't know if YouTube will leave this hearing up after it's over.  If so, you can listen in and evaluate my perception.  

New Speaker, Quick Show Of Bi-Partisanship, But Don't Hold Your Breath

 I try not to write about things getting saturation coverage if I don't think I have some insight no one else has shared.  Furthermore, I've been advised by people who care about me, not to put a target on my back by writing about Israel.  

But the House finally getting a speaker followed by an immediate, overwhelming bi-partisan vote to support Israel is too much to pass up.  [I began this Thursday evening.  Reviewing this draft on Friday, it's clear discussing Johnson AND Israel in one post, while an admirable goal since they are related, is beyond what I can expect any readers to endure.  So let's just focus in this post on Johnson's speech.] [Quotes are from the transcript at REV.com]

Johnson's speech

1.  The amount of time he spoke about religion and how he spoke about it is troubling, but given his background, not surprising.

"I want to thank my dedicated wife of almost 25 years, Kelly. She’s not here, we [is 'we' her preferred pronoun?] couldn’t get a flight in time. This happened sort of suddenly, but we’re going to celebrate soon. She spent the last couple of weeks on her knees in prayer to the Lord and she’s a little worn out, we all are."

Truly, I have no idea if he was being serious about her being literally on her knees in prayer for two weeks or he was just being metaphorical to make his point.  At the time of the speech, I took it literally.  Now I'm not so sure.  I suspect his fellow Baptists didn't even notice anything unusual in this phrasing.

Later in his speech he said, 

"I don’t believe there are any coincidences in a matter like this. I believe that scripture, the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raises up those in authority. He raised up each of you, all of us, and I believe that God has ordained and allowed each one of us to be brought here for this specific moment in this time."

Where to even start?  

A.  Given all the evil leaders the world has seen, this isn't much of a recommendation for God's choices.  But it would help explain why his wife might have been praying so fervently for two weeks - she was trying to get God to promote her husband.  

B.  And, of course, there's the oft pointed out contradiction between the professed beliefs of Christians and their support of the past president's thoroughly un-Christian behavior and life.  I know they would tell us "God works in mysterious ways" but that doesn't cut it for me.  Especially since those folks who display the most Christlike behavior - helping the poor, the outcasts, the strangers etc. -. are so roundly condemned by Evangelical Christians.  

A good portion of the rest of the speech also focused on God - how "In God We Trust" got engraved above the rostrum in the House chambers in 1964.  But that should be a reminder that before 1956, "E Pluribus Unum" was the unofficial motto of the US until "In God We Trust" was made the official motto, in the height of the McCarthy hearings and the demonization of the Communist Soviet Union.  These changes don't just happen on their own, but I couldn't quickly find much detail about who lobbied or who funded that lobbying, to make it happen.  But my point is that God wasn't that intimately part of our official national identity until about 150 years after the US' founding.  It wasn't with us from the beginning.  

2.  His apparent isolation from most United States citizens - isolated from other ideas about religion from his own and isolated from citizens who are not members of Congress. 

Sure, he's a member of Congress.  He talks to people who have different views from his, but despite that exposure, he seems either unaware that others might find his words jarring, or he simply believes he has an inside track on Truth and so he speaks what he thinks.  

Let's reintroduce his comment about his wife being on her knees for two weeks paying here.  

A.  While I understand there are probably millions of US citizens who might relate to this physical demonstration of one's belief in God's intervention in our daily lives, there are just as many of us, probably more,  for whom being on our knees praying for several weeks is not part of our life experience.   

I looked for specific data on this.  The Pew Trust has very detailed data on who prays daily, but it's too detailed for my purposes. I wanted something to compare religious believers who pray daily to others who never pray.  But going through the Pew charts,  I was a bit surprised to see that  Democrats pray daily almost as frequently (40%) as Republicans (42%).  That people who believe homosexuality should be accepted pray daily more (49%) than people who think it shouldn't (42%).  But I couldn't find methodology for that specific survey to find out how  'pray daily' was defined.  Was it left up to the respondents? Did it include a quick "Dear God, help me pass this test"?  Did it mean a daily prayer at dinner? A communal  ritual prayer in a synagogue, or at a Buddhist shrine, or five times a day facing Mecca, or in a church?  Or all of those things?  I couldn't find an answer.

B.  Another brief comment he made, that on the face of it, might seem benign or even a positive sign, was this: 

"I want to thank our children, Michael and Hannah and Abby and Jack and Will. All of our children sacrifice, all of them do and we know that and there’s not a lot of perks to being a member of Congress’ kid, right?"

I think thanking our children for the burdens we put on them is a very important thing to do regularly.  But when you have just become the head of one of the most powerful bodies of the US government (and thus the world)  and you're speaking to the nation, this is really an example of privilege and deafness to the rest of the population.  

"Not a lot of perks to being a member of Congress' kid."  I get it.  Their congressional parent is away a lot and always busy.  And if he were talking privately to other members of Congress, this would make sense.  But this was a speech to the world.

Lots of kids have parents who work long hours.  Have single parents.  Have no parents.  I imagine that Congress members' kids get a hell of a lot more perks than most kids get.  Especially in the current economy in the US where the divide between the very rich and everyone else has become so great.  Especially when conservatives are passing laws to require kids to bear the babies of their (often related) rapists. And when conservatives like Mike Johnson have tried to make being LGBTQ+ a crime.

That Johnson said this in a speech like this, tells me he doesn't understand how the vast majority of people in this country live. 

3.  On a more positive note, he also said this:  

"We stand at a very dangerous time, I’m stating the obvious. We all know that the world is in turmoil, but a strong America is good for the entire world. We are the beacon of freedom and we must preserve this grand experiment in self-governance. It still is. We’re only 247 years into this grand experiment. We don’t know how long it will last, but we do know that the founders told us to take good care of it."

At a time when many of us see the reelection of the former president as the end of US democracy, it's good to hear this.  But hearing it from the lips of an extreme conservative who voted against confirming Biden's election, and who has that ex-president's support, makes me question what he meant by this.  

A.  Does he define democracy the way I do?  He's a conservative Christian, former state legislature, from a state whose legislature was told to fix their gerrymandered voting districts and they refused.  It took the US Supreme Court to compel the changes. [And double checking this now, I see that all the Congressional chaos, plus the Israeli-Hamas war, has pushed to the background new developments in the Lousiana gerrymandering case -  that just last week the 5th Circuit has delayed this action further.

Does he have a different definition of democracy than I have?  Reports on his past statements tell us that belief in God is more important than the US Constitution. A Politico interview today reports: 

"Johnson has said that [David] Barton’s ideas and teachings have been extremely influential on him, and that is essentially rooting him in this longer tradition of Christian nationalism. Christian nationalism essentially posits the idea that America is founded on God’s laws, and that the Constitution is a reflection of God’s laws. Therefore, any interpretation of the Constitution must align with Christian nationalists’ understanding of God’s laws. Freedom for them means freedom to obey God’s law, not freedom to do what you want. So really, Christian supremacy and a particular type of conservative Christianity is at the heart of Johnson’s understanding of the Constitution and an understanding of our government."

B.  Is this all a well rehearsed performance to appear to be the polite new leader who will welcome all to work through our issues?  Or is it just a cover for a far right religious radical who is now the leader of the US House of Representatives?  

I'm inclined to think it is just a cover.  But while Johnson has managed to keep out of the spotlight up until now, all the world's spotlights are shining brightly on him.  And the internet means everything he's ever publicly said in the past will be blown up and examined in detail.  It's already begun.  

And if the Republicans had a rare show of unity Wednesday when they elected Johnson to be Speaker, is it going to last?  The rules that allowed one member to call for ousting the Speaker are still in place.   One objector with four other GOP supporters could overthrow Johnson the way Gaetz overthrew McCarthy.  But for the moment the GOP house thugs appear happy with Johnson.  

The Democrats will clearly make Johnson a poster boy when they campaign to put Democrats back in the majority of the House of Representatives.   

Overall his speech, was just under 20 minutes and you can watch and listen to it here. 

 

Choking The Secret Service, Smashing China, Taking Down Security Magnetometer - Thoughts From Today's Jan6 Committee Hearing

The headlines are expressing surprise at how much the the January 6 Hearings are revealing and Republicans are claiming not to have understood how serious things were.  

From @PalmerReport:

CNN says many Republican officials are “stunned” by today’s bombshells about Trump. No. They knew he was every bit this evil. They’re only stunned that the January 6th Committee was this successful at digging it all up.

No one who has paid any attention whatsoever, didn't know how bad it was.  Only those who had a  vested interest in believing Trump should have known.  

Here are some thoughts which I started jotting down after the first break today:

1.  Most pressing question for me was: what motivates a person like Cassidy Hutchinson, who has served a number of far right politicians before moving to the White House, to now testify about what she saw?  How did she make the decision?  I understand that we tolerate flaws in people we love or people we hope will achieve important outcomes.  Democrats defended Clinton during his impeachment trial because they thought his presidency was more important.  I'm just curious how people decide their hero has cross one line too many?  

Later, Hutchinson actually told us it was watching the her big boss actually encouraging the insurrection.  

 "As an American, I was disgusted. It was unpatriotic, it was un-American. We were watching the Capitol building get defaced over a lie,".  

2.  Dripping Ketchup, Smashing China:  In regards to that first question,  I'm sure there are some very proper GOP women who will finally be convinced after hearing that he smashed the china against the wall.  

Hutchinson testified that T was so mad at Barr for an interview with the media (AP I think) that he threw his lunch against the wall, getting it full of ketchup, and breaking the (White House presumably) china.  

They might think that groping 'those kind of women' was just boys being boys.  But visualizing the ketchup dripping down the wall and seeing the broken china pieces on the floor will be enough for some to draw the line.  

3.  The Magnetometer,  steering wheel, and the neck.  Hutchinson testified that Trump learned the audience for his speech wasn't as big as he wanted because his supporters didn't want to go through the Magnetometer machines and have their weapons confiscated.  He said they weren't going to hurt him and should keep their weapons and take them to the Capitol

“I don’t fucking care they have weapons,” he allegedly said. “Take the fucking mags away.” Then in his speech, he urged those same supporters to march down to the Capitol. 

And then when the secret service refused his order to drive to the Capitol, Hutchinson testified that he grabbed the steering wheel and the neck of the secret service guarding him trying to get them to turn around and drive to the Capitol with the mob.  

"“I’m the f—-ing president, take me to the Capitol now,” he told his staff, according to Hutchinson. The president lunged for the steering wheel, Ornato told Hutchinson, and when Engel tried to restrain him, Trump lunged for Engel and tried to grab him around his throat area."  (MSNBC)

I'd note T has denied these events ever happened.  Of course.  Maybe he should call up Rep. Thompson and volunteer to testify under oath.  

4.  Hanged versus Hung.  She talked about T encouraging the people who wanted Pence 'hung.'  Just for the record, pictures and clothes and even juries can be hung.  But when talking about people executed with ropes around their necks, the right word is 'hanged'.  I don't think it matters too much, but it is a curiosity of the English language.  

5.  Cassidy Hutchinson is merely 25 years old and has had positions working for various powerful Republican politicians since graduating from college.  She was remarkably composed at the hearing today.  

People might tell you we need to get past this and just move on. We don't do that for most crimes where there's an accused unless the prosecution doesn't think there is enough evidence, or the accused is a white police officer or very wealthy and/or well connected.  

Not enforcing the law vigorously against those who tried to overthrow the election and end American democracy as we know it, by people who continue to call the visible leader of that movement their hero and want him to run again in 2024, only encourages such behavior to continue. Putting every insurrectionist  in  prison isn't going to change their minds, just as imprisoning a murderer isn't going to change his mind.  We put them away to stop them from committing more crimes. Though a civilized country would find far more humane and effective ways to deter and rehabilitate then the US prison system. 

And for those Republicans, particularly in Congress, who want to just let it go, I'd remind them that there were ten Congressional Benghazi investigations from April 2013 to December 2016.

"Despite numerous allegations against Obama administration officials of scandal, cover-up and lying regarding the Benghazi attack and its aftermath, none of the ten investigations found any evidence to support those allegations."

And then there was the Clinton email investigations.  The Republicans are less effective in investigations that end up in prosecutions.  They're more effective in creating 'scandals' to hurt their opponents' election chances.   

Finally,  John Durham is still investigating the FBI investigation of the Russian connections to Trump.  He was appointed in May 2019.  The recent trial jury in that investigation found attorney John Sussman not guilty.  That's over three years for people whose math is rusty.  At about $1 million per year.