The Dan J Sullivan Removal From Ballot Hearing

The Alaska House Judicial and State Affairs Committees held a joint meeting today to discuss the removal of US Senate candidate Daniel J. Sullivan from the primary ballot.  

The proceedings were polite, even cordial, though the Democrats and Republicans had very strong opposing views of what has happened.  I think the easiest way for the reader, is for me to break this down into several big questions:

1. Was it legal for the Division of Elections to remove Daniel J. Sullivan from the ballot?
2. What's in it for the Democrats?
3. What's in it for the Republicans?
4. If Daniel J. were on the ballot, would it hurt Daniel S?
5. Are there bigger implications?

Let's look at these one at a time.  

1.  Was it legal for the Division of Elections to remove Daniel J. Sullivan from the ballot?

I think the answer is pretty clear:  No it was not legal to remove him from the ballot.

The Democrats and the three witnesses all repeatedly pointed out that there are only three qualifications to be  a  US Senate candidate.  They are listed in the US Constitution.  

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]

Basically 

1. at least 30 years old
2. a US citizen for at least nine years
3. an inhabitant of the state when elected

That's it.  Nothing else matters because the US Constitution trumps all other laws or regulations.  NOTE: this applies to US Senate and US House races, not to state offices.

The Republicans made the case that Daniel J. Sullivan was not a serious candidate, that his intent was to mislead and confuse the voters.  They implied, but I didn't hear them say directly, that this was an attempt to steal votes from US Senator Dan Sullivan.  

They cited the state administrative code AAC 25.212 - Appearance of candidate's name on the ballot

Specifically they cited the part of the code that says:

(b) A candidate's name may not appear on a ballot . . . (2) in a manner that is confusing or misleading to voters or compromises the fairness or neutrality of the ballot.

Thus, they argue,  the Division Director had no choice but to remove his name, because it was confusing and misleading.  

All three witnesses and the Democratic members pointed out that thte Administrative Code did not supersede the US Constitution.  

They pointed out cases where other candidates were not removed from ballot.  They particularly focused on Eric Hafner, who ran for US House in Alaska in 2024, even though he had never been in Alaska, and was serving a 20 year sentence in a New York prison.  

The Democrats challenged his name being on the ballot (he was listed as a Democrat).  They argued that he was not and would not be an Alaskan inhabitant when elected.  The Supreme Court ruled that there was a possibility he would be paroled if he won and he was left on the ballot.  

Intent was not an issue, but rather whether he met the Constitutioal requirements.  In that case, the Republicans wanted him on the ballot in hopes that he would syphon off votes from the Democratic US Rep. Mary Peltola.  

2.  What's in it for the Democrats?

The Democrats argued that it was against the law to remove him.  Is there a chance having a second Republican Dan Sullivan on the ballot would help the Democratic candidate?  One would like to think they are doing this because they believe in the rule of law, and believe the law is being thwarted.  But there is also the possibility that if Daniel J. is on the ballot, he could pull votes away from Daniel S.   Let me address that in Question 4.  

3.  What's in it for the Republicans?

I heard frustration and anger from Republicans on the committee that a candidate that they did not vet or approve of  got on the ballot with a Republican label.  It was deceptive.  It was intended to confuse the voters.  It was particularly sneaky because his name was so similar to their front runner candidate.  

Republican Rep. McCabe, I believe, took the opportunity at the hearing to point out that this confusion wouldn't have happened when we had closed primaries and the parties could designate who could use the party's label.  Since, Republicans have gotten a referendum on the November ballot to repeal the Ranked Choice Voting, Open Primaries, and campaign funding limits that were originally established by referendum,  I'm guessing they'll use this case as a reason to vote for the current proposition to end all three (RCV, open primaries, and campaign financing limits and disclosure).

Given that the head of their party, President Trump is the greatest liar, dirty trickster, election denier in US history, one has to take their anger and righteousness with a grain of salt.  They support President Trump's every lie and nasty attack on Democrats, women, immigrants, LGBTQ+, journalists.  While I might accept that they believe that the Administrative Code was a legitimate basis for kicking Daniel J. off the ballot, the law is pretty clear.  

Again, looking at the actions of Trump administration, I can't take too seriously that the Republicans are supporters of the rule of law.  It seems more like they are supporters of rule of winning.  And it appears, at this point, they probably will win.  They claim that the ballots will be printed on June 28.  That's about five days away.  I haven't heard about any attorneys about to file a lawsuit to restore Daniel J.'s name to the ballot. *** Anything is possible, but it looks like a win for the Republicans.  (The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) made a complaint about Daniel J.'s candidacy and the Alaska Republican Party made two more complaints  to the Division of Elections, which is under the purview of Republican Lt. Governor Dahlstrom and Republican Director of the Division of Elections Beecher.

***I wrote this post last night and this morning I learned from  Alaska Public Media's Wesley Early that there is indeed a lawsuit that has been filed in Superior Court.  (Links to what they filed) I've only read it quickly, but right off the bat they ask the court, because of the June 28 ballot printing deadline, to either

1. have his name put back on the ballot, or
2. delay printing ballots until this is resolved ***

[And I've learned since, that the hearing will be in Superior Court at 10am Thursday June 25.]

And given the Trump administration's war of Democratic voters - the many moves to redistrict to eliminate Democratic districts, to suppress the Black vote, and otherwise bend the election results through manipulation, I can't help but wonder if this is a test to be used in other states.  Don't like a candidate?  Knock him off the ballot. But time it so there isn't time to appeal before you have to print the ballots.

4.  If Daniel J. were on the ballot, would it hurt Daniel S?

I started this section thinking:  probably not.  That Daniel J. just won't get to the general election.  But read on. I find it hard to believe that Mary Peltola and Dan Sullivan will not be among the four top candidates in the primary election who would move on to the general election in November.  There are 15 candidates on the ballot as of today.  One more has withdrawn and another, Daniel J,. has a denied marked on his name.  

There's one main Democrat and one main Republican - Peltola and Sen. Sullivan.  The only other name that I recognize is Libertarian Party candidate Scott Kohlhaas.  No, there are two more I recognize - perennial candidate for office Dustin Darden and Carol Hafner, the mother of Eric Hafner, the New York prisoner running, again, for the US House seat.  Yes, his mother is running for the Alaska US Senate seat though she has never been to Alaska and lives in South Dakota.  

In the 2024 US House primary race there were three 'known' candidates:  Mary Peltola, Nick Begich, and Nancy Dahlstrom.  Those three captured 97% of the vote.  In the Alaska open primary, the top four candidates go on to the general election.  The fourth candidate got 0.6% of the votes.  The fifth place candidate was also at 0.6%.  The sixth place candidate, the guy in the New York prison, got 0.4% of the votes.  The third place candidate, Nancy Dahlstrom - now the Lt. Governor and overseer of the elections in 2026 - dropped out.  Purportedly so as to not split the Republican vote in the general.  Though because of ranked choice voting, that shouldn't have been an issue.  So maybe there was another reason.  Then the fourth place candidate dropped out.  So the fifth and sixth place candidates moved onto the general ballot.  

So would Daniel J. on the ballot hurt Daniel S. if he were on the ballot?  The GOP members of the committee were right that there would be confusion.  But as one of the witnesses who testified today, Hollis French, argued - it was up to the Division of Elections to find a way to make distinctions between the two candidates so voters could know which one was the 'real' Daniel Sullivan.  And the 'real' Dan Sullivan's campaign would have to find effective ways to help voters know which Daniel Sullivan was their current US Senator.  

We all recall how Lisa Murkowski, after losing the Republican primary, went on to conduct a successful write-in campaign, which required voters to spell her name right..  Not an easy task.  But she pulled it off.  

At this point, I''d guess that Peltola, Sen. Sullivan, and Kohlhaas would be the top three, scooping up most of the votes.  As I look at the 2024 House race, the others won't get many votes.  Though I suspect Dustin Darden has run often enough that people will vote for him because they recognize his name.  And Daniel J. probably has a good chance to get votes too, for the very reasons the Sen. Sullivan campaign and the Republican Party of Alaska and the National Party want him off the ticket.  It would be between him and Darden for fourth place.  

Given that early polls show Peltola ahead of Sen. Sullivan, having Daniel J. on the November ballot would be a threat to Sen. Sullivan's reelection.  If Daniel J. made it to the general election, and there he pulled 5% of the vote from the Senator, it could easily be enough to give Peltola the victory.  Some might say that Peltola's ahead now, so she'd win either way.  I think that's counting your chicks before the eggs are laid.  

None of this was said out loud at the hearing - at least not where the mics caught it.  

5.  Are there bigger implications?

A.  Precedent to knock candidates off the ballot in Alaska

If this succeeds, and it appears to have an excellent chance [now that the lawsuit has reached the court, I find it likely not to succeed], it would empower the Division of Elections to remove candidates from the ballot they don't like.  As long as they time it so the candidate doesn't have time to get a court ruling before the deadline for printing the ballots, they could get away with it.  

We know the National Republican Party is looking carefully at this race.  It's one that has been labeled as flippable.  We don't know how much communication there has been between the Alaska Republican Party and the National Republican Party.  Or with the Dunleavy administration and the Trump administration.  We do know the governor was in the White House recently and didn't protest when the President insulted Lisa Murkowski.  There are short rumors about Dunleavy running against Murkowski in 2028 on websites such as this one..  

I don't know what goes on behind closed doors, but we should assume that something is happening until we find out for sure.  

Meanwhile, I found one US attempt to get opponents off the ballot.  And we know that Trump admires authoritarian governments, the type that keeps opponents off the ballot.  

How the Head of a Super PAC Tried — and Failed — to Remove Every Opponent From the 

Surprising but True: 5 Countries Where Political Opposition Is Banned

Twenty years of ruthlessness: how Russia has silenced Putin’s opponents

B.  This could be a trial run for the Trump administration to get states to just knock candidates he doesn't like off the ballot.

C.  Candidates running against each other with similar names isn't that unusual.

First, it's not that unusual for competing candidates to have similar names.  

"In 215 contests across 15 states, 438 candidates running for office this year share the same last name. Every single one of these contests is for a local election. Of these contests, all but one are nonpartisan elections. One contest, District 20 of the New York City Council, was a partisan contest where Allen Wang (Conservative Party) and Steven Wang (Patriot Party) shared a last name." (From Ballotpedia)

And in Washington State, we have a story of a Republican recruiting two Bob Fergusons to run against the Democratic candidate for Governor, Bob Ferguson.  But this was a state office, not a federal office, and the state had rules against candidates running to intentionally confuse voters. 

I think this captures the most important ideas that came out of the hearing - spoken, unspoken, and beyond.  The next focus will be on the Superior Court.  

Below is a link to the video of the meeting.  I think my approach here is more useful to readers than trying to outline what all happened in the meeting.  You can watch/listen to the meeting below.

 

And while I was trying to finish this up, I found a Wesley Early Alaska Public Media  article "Petersburg’s Dan Sullivan sues Alaska Division of Elections after being removed from U.S. Senate ballot"  Other than the first sentence which says he filed suit, the article gives no more details on when or where he filed suit.  It is a brief synopsis of today's hearing and I found nothing about Daniel G. suing other than the headline.  

The hearing is scheduled for Thursday morning in Superior Court.  There will be a zoom link.  I'll get the time and courtroom and zoom number tomorrow I hope.  

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  (You are now reading this one)

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]  

June 28, 2026

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

Monday, June 29, 2026   Alaska Division Of Elections v Daniel J. Sullivan At Supreme Court

Monday, June 29, 2026   Supreme Court Keeps Daniel J. Sullivan On The Ballot 

Tuesday, June 30, 2026  Division of Election's Sample Ballot Leaves Off Daniel J's Party Affiliation

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.  

Follow up 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]  

June 28, 2026

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

Monday, June 29, 2026   Alaska Division Of Elections v Daniel J. Sullivan At Supreme Court

Monday, June 29, 2026   Supreme Court Keeps Daniel J. Sullivan On The Ballot 

Tuesday, June 30, 2026  Division of Election's Sample Ballot Leaves Off Daniel J's Party Affiliation

AIFF2025: Tuesday Doesn't Start Until Noon

 Everything today is happening at the E Street Theater.  

12 Noon:  International Shorts

2pm:   Respecting the Earth Short Docs

4pm:   Among Thieves — Trevor J. Wallace, Gino R. Caspari 

From the film's website:

"DESTRUCTION OF HERITAGE

THE ISSUE

The looting and destruction of archaeological sites is a global issue that destroys our shared heritage. Cultures known from only a limited number of sites are especially vulnerable, as each loss significantly impacts our understanding. In recent years, the problem has intensified due to growing demand and a corresponding surge in market prices. Yet despite this escalation, little is known about the illegal trade in antiquities or the underlying structures and dynamics of the black market. A broad public with a strong interest in archaeology often remains unaware of the critical differences between grave robbing and legitimate archaeological research - an issue compounded by popular portrayals that lack nuance."

Anchorage will be one of the first places this film is shown.   

6pm:  Honeyjoon -  Lilian T. Mehrel

Image from Cineuropa

From Hammertonail:

"In Honeyjoon, find ourselves in the paradise that is San Miguel island, the Azores, Portugal. Stark blue waters mirror the cloudless sky above as honeymooners bask in the sun, hand in hand, enveloped by the romantic allure of the island. It’s a scene taken from a Renoir painting. For Honeyjoon’s main characters, though, it’s more like Dante’s Inferno.

In her debut feature film, director Lilian T. Mehrel paints a landscape that traverses the human experiences of tragedy, comedy, and joy. Mother and daughter, Lela (Amira Casar) and June (Ayden Mayeri) embark on a trip to San Miguel on the one year anniversary of their husband/father’s death. Although a veil of grief is cast upon their trip, they find themselves surrounded by happy couples, trapped in saccharine claustrophobia. Mehrel captures the waves of loss, joy, and relief June and Lela feel by having them, and the viewer, bend to the will of San Miguel’s mercurial nature. . ."

There were good films yesterday and I'll try to catch up - but I really liked The Collaborator and Rosemead, two excellent, but very different narrative features.

The film makers are off on an excursion today - to walk on a glacier I think.  

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

Some Much Needed Civil Service History

From the August 31, 2024 LA Times: [Note the digital and facsimile editions have different titles.]

 

As someone who taught public administration at the graduate level, I'm well aware of the lack of knowledge of what 'the civil service' is.  So let me give you some background.  

Before the civil service was created in local, state, and federal governments, we had what is often called "the spoils system."

Briefly, 'to the victor, go the spoils.'  Winning candidates gave jobs to the campaign supporters.  This was the payoff for working on a campaign.  Qualifications were not nearly as important as loyalty.  This included positions as low as garbage collector and as high as the head of the budget.  

Aside from the incompetence and corruption this led to, it also meant that whenever someone from a different party won, the whole government was thrown out and new people were put in place.  And had to learn from scratch, generally without any help from the fired former workers.

Political machines, like Tammany Hall in New York, would recruit new immigrants coming off the ships to work on their campaigns with the promise of a job if they won.  [US citizenship was not required to vote back then.  That changed later.  The Constitution gave the states the power to run elections and decide qualifications to vote.  The Constitution didn't ban women from voting, the states did.]

At the national level, this came to a head when Andrew Jackson was elected president and invited 'the riffraff' that elected him to the White House in 1830.  But it wasn't until a disgruntled office seeker assassinated President Garfield in 1881 because he didn't get the position he sought, that Congress got serious. 

In 1883 they passed the Pendleton Act that set up a civil service system based on merit.  

Merit, as in the 'merit system' means that positions are filled based on merit, or on one's qualifications for the job, not on who you know.  

Local governments in New York and Boston didn't move to merit systems until the early 20th Century.  

Those merit systems weren't perfect.  The inherent biases of the day meant that women and Blacks weren't qualified except for what Trump would call 'women's jobs' and 'Black jobs.'  

And even today, the top level jobs in most governments are still filled with people who are loyal to the head of the government - whether that's a mayor, governor, or president.   Not only does that include cabinet officials but a top layer of 'exempt' positions.  Exempt meaning they are not covered by the merit system.  They can be hired and fired at will.  Usually the newly elected official picks people based on their loyalty to the policy as well as their professional qualifications to do the job.  But clearly that second part doesn't always happen.  The only check on this, is a required vote of approval by a legislative body - the US or state Senate, a City Council.  But if the newly elected executive  has a majority in the legislative branch too, that approval is often pro forma.

People hired through a merit system process also have job protections.  They cannot be fired except for cause - for violating the law, the policies or procedures, for gross incompetence etc.  Whereas the appointed (exempt) positions don't have such protections.  

After his 2016 election, Trump was frequently frustrated by career civil servants, who didn't jump to follow his often illegal instructions. The media have dubbed these people (who included many appointed positions as well) 'the guardrails' that kept Trump somewhat in line. He wanted the Justice Department to punish people who opposed him.  He did battle with the civil servants in various regulatory agencies who followed the law rather than Trump's illegal bidding.  

So, when we hear that Trump wants to destroy the civil service, as stated in the LA Times headline above, this is what we're talking about.  

He doesn't want a system that hires qualified people who cannot be fired except for cause.  (Again, for cause, means they have to do something that violates the laws, the rules, or is grossly incompetent or corrupt.)  He wants government workers that do his bidding without any resistance, without them telling him 'it's against the law.'

He wants to fire all those people who were hired based on merit (their qualifications to perform the job).  These include Democrats, Republicans, and non-partisan employees.  He wants to replace them with people whose main qualification is undying loyalty to Trump.  

That's pretty much all I want to say.

One of the very best books on this subject is Robert Caro's The Power Broker.  It's a biography of Robert Moses who played a major role in getting a merit system in place in New York.  It's a massive [1168 pages] book.  But it is also riveting as it goes into detail on how the young, idealist Moses evolved into the powerful and corrupt power broker of New York. And in doing so tells the story of the civil service. Not only did the book win the Pulitzer Prize, it was also selected on most lists of the 100 best non-fiction books of the 20th Century. I challenge you to read the first hundred pages and not want to keep turning the pages.

It's NOT Better To Ask Forgiveness . . . Why The Assembly Shouldn't Settle With Roger Hickel

Roger Hickel's construction company filed suit against the Municipality of Anchorage.

"In its lawsuit, Hickel says it wants to be paid for the nearly $2.5 million of work it did last year, plus damages to be determined."  (From Alaska Public Media)

He claims he had a contract with the Municipality to do the work and now he's not getting paid.  

The problem is that his contract wasn't valid because it had never been approved by the Assembly.

"It started last year when the administration authorized Hickel to begin construction without Assembly authorization. That came to light last fall, and the Anchorage Assembly suspended the project." (same APM article.)

Last September, the Mayor brought a contract amendment to the Assembly.  

"On March 21, 2022, MOA Purchasing approved a Contract with RHC for Pre-

11 Construction Management (CM) services for the MOA Navigation Center as the

12 result of Request for Proposal 2022P007. Of the two proposals received,

13 reviewed, and evaluated, RHC received the highest score. The contract amount

14 was $50,000.00 and the period of performance was through December 31, 2022.

15 M&O is now requesting approval of the addition of General Contractor (GC)

16 construction services at a Not to Exceed (NTE) cost of $4,900,000.00 and a

17 contract extension through June 30, 2023. This will increase the contract amount

18 from $50,000.00 to $4,950,000.00."

But the Assembly rejected the extension of the contract:

"In a 9-3 vote, members rejected the administration’s request for $4.9 million so the city could proceed with the project. Assembly members Randy Sulte, Jamie Allard and Kevin Cross voted to approve it."

Why?  Because the Mayor had earlier secretly approved the contract without getting the Assembly's approval for the contract extension, which is required.  

"The vote came weeks after the revelation that, against city code, Bronson officials authorized millions in construction work over the summer without first getting the required Assembly approval to increase the contract with Roger Hickel Contracting by the $4.9 million. Work had begun weeks before Bronson officials in early September sent a request to the Assembly to change the contract."

“The municipality and the contractor have both been operating in good faith based on no less than three Assembly actions that appropriated to the tune of $9 million towards this project,” Municipal Manager Amy Demboski said. “It was our intent — we thought we were collaboratively working with the Assembly.” 

 About that 'good faith.'  Amy Demboski is the City Manager who a short time later, after she was fired by the Mayor, published a 'scathing letter' with a long list of things the Mayor had done very much in bad faith.

"It's better to ask forgiveness than permission" is a phrase often uttered in large bureaucracies when someone is proposing to skip over the rules.  The most positive spin would be that the complication of such organizations often frustrates folks to the point that they think it's easier to just plow ahead, without jumping through all the hoops to get permission.  But on the negative side, it's interpreted to mean 'since we aren't likely to get permission, let's just do it and it will be too late for them to do anything about it.'

The latter would seem to be what happened here.  There weren't that many hoops at the Municipality.  They just had to get the Assembly's approval.  But the Assembly had serious misgivings about the Mayor's project and there was a good chance they wouldn't approve it.  

We know the Mayor's office had to know they needed the Assembly's approval.  Contract approval is a very important and frequent part of running the Municipality.  The requirements for contract approval are one of the first things a Mayor needs to know.   There were still some pre-Bronson era employees who knew the rules and would have mentioned this.  At the very least, the Municipal Manager, Amy Demboski, a former Assembly member, knew well that the Assembly's approval was required.   

And Hickel?

Roger Hickel's LinkedIn Page says he's been doing construction in Anchorage for 28 years.

His construction company's website identifies over a dozen civil projects done for the MOA and the State of Alaska.  (I couldn't fit them all in one screen shot) And over 28 years he's done many, many such projects.

He also has the MOA and State of Alaska on his list of repeat customers among other government entities like the School District and the University of Alaska Anchorage. 

A FEW OF OUR REPEAT CLIENTS

Walmart

Nordstrom

Home Depot

Lowe’s

United Parcel Service

Federal Express

Army and Air Force Exchange Services

Food Services of America, NC Machinery

Providence Alaska Medical Center

Anchorage School District

Alaska Pacific University

University of Alaska

State of Alaska

the Municipality of Anchorage

Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium

Alaska Regional Hospital

As an Anchorage contractor for over 28 years with numerous contracts with the MOA of various sized projects, there is no way that Hickel didn't know that the contract extensions over a certain amount required the Assembly's approval.  You don't do this many government construction projects without knowing the rules of the Muni and the State, without knowing the cost limits that require additional approval, without experts in your office who do this routinely.  

And he knew the project was controversial.  That it might not get the approval.  He and the mayor may have convinced themselves the project was critical to solve the Anchorage homelessness situation, but they still knew it required the Assembly's permission.  

The Assembly should call their bluff.  Let them go to court.  Let them explain why they went ahead without the Assembly's approval before a judge and a jury.  My guess is that the judge and jury will understand they were taking a calculated risk.  That the project was controversial and not likely to get the Assembly's approval.  That they were betting that moving the project ahead would force the Assembly to approve a project that they had serious questions about.  

I'm not a betting man, but I take the rule of law seriously.  I urge the Assembly to be firm.  To hold the Mayor and the contractor accountable for breaking the Municipal ordinance.  To let a jury decide.  I'm fairly confident that going to court will cause Hickel to settle for a much lower sum from the Muni.  And that a jury would side with the Assembly.  

My Indonesian Yacht Cruise Was A Raft Trip On The Yentna With Ted Turner

[For those who are used to Twitter and need the this to read this in 20 seconds, skip down to the bolded question, What does this have to do with yachts cruising Indonesian islands? For those that want some context (and a little history on how the Anchorage Assembly first got onto cable, start at the beginning.]

 

Michael Shamberg's Guerilla Television had put video literacy into my life goals.  It pointed out that we are taught to read and write at school and given some skills in recognizing when written language is being used to manipulate us. (This was the 70s when schools still did that.  I think many still do, but I'm guessing a lot don't.)  

Shamberg's premise was that we were getting so much news via television that we needed that same sort of training in videography.  The book was a treatise on what was wrong with how news was created and a citizens handbook for how to make people's videos and how citizen created videos would change the world.  This was at a time when video cameras were pretty bulky and pricey, and there weren't any outlets for citizens to show their videos. There weren't even any Blockbusters yet.

I'd say Shamberg was pretty visionary. Eventually cameras on phones gave everyone a pocket video recorder and YouTube offered everyone a people's theater where anyone could show their videos and anyone could watch them.  Social media have extended the audience even further.  

And so when cable television was beginning to show up I was paying attention.  I was reading cable industry journals and even went to a few conferences on cable public access.  I was especially excited about the contracts around the country that required the cable companies to set up public access video studios with cameras and editing equipment so people could make their own videos. They also required public access channels to play those citizen made videos on. Sure, the audience was limited to cable viewers, but it was a step in the right direction. 

Multivision had bid for the contract in Anchorage.  This was 1982 or 83.  I was working on loan from the University to the Municipality of Anchorage for a couple of years.  I read the Multivision proposal and was dismayed that there was no provision for a public access video studio or a channel for people's video.  I kept telling Cathy Allen, Mayor Knowles' chief of staff (I think that was her title) that the Municipality should be demanding that such provisions - modeled from Outside cable agreements - be included in Multivisions' contract.  She kept treating me like I was crazy.  I kept sending her memos (yeah, email was not available yet)  about the Alaska Public Utility  Commission's meetings on cable.  One was coming up soon where there would be public testimony. On the day of the meeting I got a call to come up to Allen's office right away.  She'd just come back from a national conference and a city manager from a big city had sat her down and told her how important it was to have public access in cable contracts. Nothing I hadn't been telling her, but he was more credible to her than I had been.  So yes, I could go to the meeting and represent the Muni that afternoon.  

Fortunately, I'd been reading the proposal and comparing the prices they were proposing for monthly subscriptions and had lots of information about public access in other cities.  

So there I was, at the last minute, running down the street to the meeting.  There weren't a lot of people there and they all seemed to be Multivisions boosters.  Then my turn to talk came.  I nervously compared Multivisions prices to Outside prices and said something like, "I understand it is more expensive to operate in Alaska than it is Outside, but it's NOT three times as expensive!"  I also talked about how most cities were requiring cable companies to have public access studies and a public access channel.  And I sat down.

At the next break, I was mobbed by six or seven people asking me, essentially, "who the hell are you?" did  I really represented the Muni.  

As time went by I was back arguing that Multivisions should be televising the Assembly meetings live.  Not possible they said.  At that time they were meeting in the Muni's Tudor Road buildings and they said it wasn't wired for cable.  It would have to wait until the new Loussac Library opened.  

But for some reason the Assembly  had to move out of the Tudor building and temporarily went to the new Convention Center on 5th Avenue.  And I knew that building was wired.  By that time I'd gotten some others to join me and we had set up a non-profit for this project - something like Anchorage Media Access Group.  I lobbied the Assembly members and they agreed to a six month trial and allotted a paltry sum - maybe $3000 for that.  Our non-profit sent out an RFP to every third video business in the Anchorage media resources book.  We got two bids.  One was way beyond the money the Assembly offered.  The other was a budding videographer who agreed to do it at a ridiculously low price with the help of volunteers (ourselves and a few others) who would staff the cameras for him.  

At first, he balked. He couldn't trust his expensive cameras to volunteers.   But he relented when we pointed out that he couldn't afford to do it any other way.  And so the Assembly began its six months experiment being broadcast live on Anchorage cable.  

While Assembly members had had a number of doubts - it would lead to grandstanding, those without cable wouldn't have access, etc. - after several weeks they were all won over.  They had so many people say they saw them on cable and they had people showing up saying they were watching at home and had to come down to testify.  At the end of the six months they approved a much larger budget and our videographer got the contract and we stopped having to supply volunteers.  We disbanded our non-profit and gave the Assembly back the $500 we still had left and asked them to use it to support televising the Assembly. 

 

What does this have to do with yachts cruising Indonesian islands? 

Somewhere along this cable path, I got an invitation from Multivision to go on a float trip on the Yentna River with Ted Turner whom they were bringing up to Alaska.  That sounded very cool, but unlike a certain US Supreme Court justice, I didn't consider accepting for a second.  

I understood that I hadn't been randomly selected for this honor, but that it had to do with my advocacy for a better deal for Anchorage citizens and my advocacy for getting the Anchorage Assembly live on cable. And that this might be their way to get me to tone it down or who knows?.  I thanked them and said I couldn't accept their offer. 

Clarence Thomas, on the other hand, seems to have had no qualms about accepting annual half-a-million dollar vacations and didn't see it necessary to report these on his annual financial disclosure forms.  

The wealthy Republicans have been smart and have taken a long range planning approach to maintain power. When Bork got turned down for the Court, they apparently realized democracy was no longer enough.  

Lobbying has been a traditional way to get legislators to vote against the interests of their constituents.  This relationship is strengthened by campaign contributions. And secrecy. But even better would be owning a Supreme Court that decided their way if the legislature wouldn't.  

The Democrats have not been as Machiavellian and were not very good as spotting the stealth takeover  of the Supreme Court the Republicans, through the Federalist Society, had worked on for so many years.  

And with Trump as president, they succeeded in taking over the Court.  Justice Kennedy abruptly resigned to make room for Kavanaugh.  I'm still certain there's a cloak and dagger story about how Kennedy was convinced to step down, that would include his son's work for Deutsche Bank, the last major bank still willing to lend money to Trump for his projects. And Justin Kennedy was the man who made those loans happen. 

But since Trump essentially turned the job of picking his court nominees over to the Federalist Society, it's pretty clear that they had something to do with Kennedy's resignation as well.  The first link is to a speech by Sen. Whitehouse - the Senate's most active and vocal observer of how the Federalist Society has managed the sharp lurch to the right of the Supreme Court.  But for those of you who need a different source, here's a report from The Hill.  Speculation?  Sure.  But a lot of clues point in the right direction. And like Thomas' vacations with the Crows, I'm pretty certain there's lots we don't yet know.  At least there are facts and motives pointing in this direction, which is way more than the Republicans have for every major scandal they scream about daily.  

Breakdown of Norms

From Oxford Bibliographies:

"[Norms] are most commonly defined as rules or expectations that are socially enforced. Norms may be prescriptive (encouraging positive behavior; for example, “be honest”) or proscriptive (discouraging negative behavior; for example, “do not cheat”)."

Basically, norms are the rules that are socially, rather than legally, enforced.  When people break the norms, public opinion is the force that 'rules' the consequences.  Politicians lose elections, officials resign their posts.  

But we're in a period where Republicans, particularly, are no longer constrained by norms.  They're no longer constrained by laws. (Sure, politicians on both sides have fudged the law forever, but they did it clandestinely, not flagrantly out in the open.)  While Trump is by far the most egregious example, his Republican colleagues in the House and Senate have gone along.  The Senate had the power to remove him from office after the House voted for impeachment.  Twice.  

They didn't.  Instead, they rammed through the nominations of Kavanaugh and Barrett.  

Not all the Republicans are completely craven, but they are all much more interested in their reelections than they are in maintaining traditional norms of appearing to support the public interest, 

And Fox News, particularly, has worked closely with Trump to make sure their viewers are fed the stories they (the viewers) want to hear, no matter how much they deviate from truth.  Those Republicans who stood up to Trump, even slightly, have either retired (rather than face Trump's cult in the primaries) or they were defeated in the primaries.  Alaska's Senator Murkowski is the only exception I know of.  She used a write-in campaign to overcome a primary defeat in 2012.  In 2022, Alaska's new Ranked ChoiceVoting went into effect, which eliminated closed party primaries and put all candidates for each office into one primary. 

The wealthy Right Wingers know that their ideas are not popular with the voters.  Ending abortion, no restrictions on guns, racial discrimination, election manipulation are all opposed by healthy majorities of the general population. 

To win, Republicans have to rig the game.  Pack the Supreme Court with judges who rule in favor of business most of the time.  Gerrymander state voting districts to get far more Republicans elected even when the actual numbers of both parties are much more even.  Suppress the votes of minorities and the young in as many ways as they can think of.  Oppose all bills to help overcome the disparities in wealth, access to food, housing, education, and health care. In fact oppose all legislation that might be good for the country that Biden could take credit for.  And now we're seeing the truly power obsessed trying to control women's rights to decide their own health care, even banning out of state travel for those seeking abortions.  

With a strong Supreme Court majority, Republican governors are writing laws so far out of the bounds of US social norms and violate decades old Supreme Court precedents.  They are doing this in anticipation of the new Federalist Society judges overturning all those precedents as just as they overturned Roe v. Wade.  Voting rights?  We're back to a post Civil War Supreme Court that used States' Rights to allow disenfranchisement of blacks and lynchings among other terrible practices.  

And when Clarence Thomas says in his brief official statement that he read the rules and consulted with others and they said he didn't have to report transportation, he's telling me that he has NO business being a US Supreme Court Justice.  

• First, this is so extreme an example - half a million dollar vacations for 20 years!  Any reasonable person knows this sort of 'gift' needs to be reported  (I didn't have to go to law school to know accepting a pricey trip with a celebrity was the wrong thing to do.)
• Second, if Thomas has trouble interpreting such obvious and simple disclosure rules for judicial gifts, then he is hardly qualified to interpret the US Constitution. 
• Third, if he is capable of such interpretation, then he's intentionally flouting the rules and the norms for his own advantage.  In this case his perceived best interest was non-disclosure. One would assume that is also how he often interprets the law and the Constitution in his Supreme Court decisions.  
• Fourth, hanging out with the Crows and their yachting friends helps to shape his ideas of his own best interests and appropriate interpretations of the Constitution.

CONCLUSIONS

Like most such issues, this one is entangled in many overlapping contexts of law, of history, of politics, of economics, of ethics, that it is difficult to discuss it without either leaving important points out or without getting so long and complicated people won't finish.  

A key issue I'm leaving out is accountability of career and elected public officials.  Of course Trump and Fox have so violated societal norms of behavior and of truth telling that we seem to be in a completely different place than we were five or six years ago.  Though another part of me believes that the craziness we hear these days has always existed.  But today's technology enables much more of it to be seen and heard by the public.  

If that's true, the good news is that all this ugliness is being exposed - from police brutality to overt racism (OK, those two are probably intertwined), to sexual abuse, etc.  The bad news is those with norm-violating behavior and thoughts have found support for their anti-democracy desires.  

Before the Republicans get ultimate control of the courts and can manipulate all elections, we need to get all the folks who are still within traditional norms, but have given up on voting, to go vote.  There are still tens of millions of people who have come up with excuses not to vote.  (And this is also in part due to the Right's propaganda about how terrible government is, Democrats are, and how corrupt elections are.)  

Those who want Democracy to carry on have an obligation to get everyone who doesn't normally vote, to vote in the next few elections.  And the Republicans' extreme power grabbing - abortions bans, LGBTQ+ baiting, anti-Semitism, book banning, expulsion of duly elected legislators are all helping to get those voters to the polls in the next elections.   

We need enough Democrats in state legislatures and in Congress to overcome Republican attempts to turn the US into an authoritarian regime favoring wealthy white males who distort the Bible to further their interests.  

Bill Allen - My Respect For Him As A Pre-Modern Man In A Modern World

When I heard last week that Bill Allen had died, I immediately wanted to write a bit of a remembrance.  I sat through three different political corruption trials in 2007 and 2008 where he was a key witness for the prosecution.  He had already pleaded guilty and would explain each time how he had given money to different Alaskan GOP politicians so they would vote favorably for the oil industry, for his company VECO in particular.

I thought I had a post that spoke to the part I wanted to say.  But I couldn't find it.  

I just read Michael Carey's Anchorage Daily News opinion piece remembering Bill Allen, so I'll refer you to that.  I met Michael on the first or second day of the first of the trials.  He'd heard that the defendant had been a former student of mine and invited me to lunch.  I told him I couldn't talk about what I knew about Tom from my teacher-student relationship, but he still took me to lunch that day.  Michael's a good man and I appreciate his view on things.

Michael's article got me to look again back into the archives of this blog and I found what I was looking for.  It's in a post talking about the stories imbedded in the trail, in this case, cultural stories. I'd note my use of the term "pre-modern man."  This doesn't mean cave man.  It refers to the value systems prior to the Scientific Revolution and the application of science and rationality to agriculture, the production of goods, to medicine, and to government and law.  It was a time when family and power were the key things that mattered. 

From Pete Kott's Trial: The Underlying Stories September 15, 2007

"First, I would note that the main character in the trial so far has been Bill Allen. Pete Kott has said very little since the first day when the jury pool assembled and Kott stood up with the attorneys and introduced himself as "Pete Kott, the defendant." Since then he's been a quiet shadow sitting between his attorneys. Witness Rick Smith has a supporting role to Bill Allen. So let me try on this story as an interpretation of some of what is happening here in court.

We have a clash of two different cultures - a pre-modern, tribal world and a modern, legal world. In Bill Allen's world, as I tease it out of his words and behaviors, power and family are the main values. Loyalty is a second, but lower value. The law, the government, the legislature in particular are seen as either obstacles to be overcome or tools to get what you want. Allen is clearly an intelligent man. Coming from a poor family, as he told the story, where he and his family survived as 'pickers' of fruit and vegetables in Oregon, he often missed school to pick. He finally dropped out at 15 to earn money as an assistant welder. He has used his wits, his ability to work hard, and his ability to size up people, to create a business that earned between $750 million and $1 billion last year, according to his testimony. 

In the world he described, good and bad referred to how something would affect his business. Good legislation was legislation that would benefit - directly or indirectly - Veco's prospects. Good people were those who supported Allen and Veco. Money was a sign of power. And with money, this high school drop-out could show his power over the better educated. He could buy legislators. He paid Tom Anderson to be a consultant who did, apparently, very little for his monthly check. He paid for political polls for state legislative candidates. He handed out checks to legislators. They had audiences with Allen in the Baranof Hotel's Suite 604. But symbolically, he could really show his power by building the addition to Ted Stevens' house and by hiring Ted Stevens' son for $4000 a month to do "not a lot." The most senior Republican U.S. Senator was beholden to him. Surely, that's a sign of power. He even bought a newspaper - The Anchorage Times.  So all these educated people worked for him - a high school drop out who'd picked fruit as a child. 

Earlier in the trial, I'd thought perhaps loyalty was the main virtue in this world - the loyalty of the Pete Kotts. The loyalty of his Veco employees. He said he trusted Kott as a friend who would do whatever it took to support him. He told the court he'd put aside $10 million when Veco was sold, to support the loyal employees who'd worked for the company and made it what it was - not the executives, but the workers. 

But then I looked at the situation before me. Allen was the government's witness against his most loyal servant, Pete Kott. We've watched this tribal culture on HBO - in the Sopranos and in Rome. We see it in the car bombs of Baghdad. We even see it in the White House where the rule of law is trumped by the raw use of power, and the redacting of significant parts of the Constitution. If the rule of law has any meaning in this culture, it is might makes right. And when the FBI confronted Allen with hundreds of hours of secretly recorded audio and video tapes, he saw that their army of investigators and attorneys had more juice than Veco. In this conflict of power, the FBI had him by the balls, a graphic image that would say it all in Allen's world.   And to protect the ultimate core of a tribal culture, his family, he abandoned Kott and the others, to keep his family out of prison.  

This is not an immoral man. Rather this is a man who lives by a different code of right and wrong from the one that now judges him. Family and power come first. Loyalty to underlings comes next. He told the court he didn't expect anything from the Government for his testimony. He recognized their power, and in their place he would not treat his vanquished with 'fairness'. But he also had his own pride - in the powerful company he built by his own hands and wit, in his own hard work - and as he told Kott's attorney, "I won't beg" the government to lower his sentence. He'll take what comes as a man. He's protected his family, whatever else happens, happens.

This man who ruled by the pre-modern values of power and personal loyalty is put on trial by the rules of a modern state, where rationality, not personality count. Where merit, not loyalty and personal connections, is the standard. (A merit system generally prefers college degrees to dirty fingernails.) His behaviors are judged, not by power, but by laws. The kind of laws he paid legislators to write in his favor and that he ignored when they were in the way.  

I think it is important to recognize the good qualities in Allen. This is a man who, it would appear, was raised in a culture where poverty was bad and thus money was good. No one was there to help him, he had to help himself. The modern, civilized world failed him. It forced him to work as a child. The school system didn't work for him. The idea of rule of law wasn't, apparently, one he learned from his family and he wasn't in school enough to get it there. With what he had, he built a large corporation which gave him the power to take care of his family. He played well by the rules of tribal culture. 

And lest those of us who believe in the rule of law get too smug, tribal instincts are alive and well under the veneer of civilization we wear. We see it flare up in divorce courts, at football stadiums and boxing matches, among hunters and fishers. It's part of our humanity. We're still learning how to balance the tension between protecting our own and helping others, between the freedom of the individual and the good of the larger community.

 

The Amount Of Oppression And Hate In The World Is Overwhelming - Makes It Hard To Blog Because There Is Too Much To Protest

When I was a grad student I wrote, in my head, what I called at the time, a 'social science fiction' novel.  That was back in the mid 1970s.  I should have written it - it was prescient in a number of things.  A basic part of the social structure in the book was a set of television connections that allowed people to connect with others all around the world.  I was back in LA after three years as a Peace Corps volunteer in Thailand.  Lots of ideas swirling in my head.  I was reading all sorts of social science and writing papers and substitute teaching elementary school to help pay for tuition.  There were a couple of days where I taught a Kindergarten class in the morning and a graduate class in the evening.  So my novel still only exists in my head. 

One of the key moments in the history of humanity in my book, was when a group of Tibetan monks, in an isolated monastery, through intensive years of meditation, discovered that forces far out in space were using earth as a 'farm.'  The product they were harvesting every 30 to 60 years, was 'goodness.' It turned out to be a rare commodity found in few places in the universe.  After such a harvest, people fought each other, more people became criminals, wars broke out.  It took 30 to 60 years for 'goodness' to gain a foothold among humanity again.  And then the aliens would return to harvest their crop.  The monks in my story teamed with scientist to block the space powers from harvesting the earth's 'goodness.'  

I've been thinking about this metaphor a lot during the Trump administration.  It seems like there was a massive harvest of goodness prior to his administration.  And now we have to nurture a new crop.  

That's prelude to a couple of things I've been reading and/or watching.

Here's a Tweet video from Al Jazeera on Uighurs incarcerated in China (not far from that fictional Tibetan monastery.)

Last year, Merdan Ghappar posted video from inside one of China's internment camps, where over 1 million Uighur Muslims have been held. He was handcuffed to his bed.

China calls them "re-education" camps.pic.twitter.com/LnufUxFg1i

— AJ+ (@ajplus) February 23, 2021

I Care A Lot

We watched this Netflix film last night in mild horror.  Marla Grayson (character) is a Guardian for seniors who can't take care of their affairs.  She works with a doctor who refers patients to her, then goes to a friendly judge who, because it's an "emergency," gives her guardianship of the patients.  Then she goes to the patient's house - in this case Jennifer Peterson, who is wealthy and living a great independent life in an upscale neighborhood.  Grayson shows her the court order, and gets the incredulous victim to the Berkshire Oaks facility.  I haven't givien much away - because Jennifer Peterson in essentially imprisoned within the first 20 minutes of the movie.  How it happens is what's so scary.  Grayson is truly evil. 

"Writer/director J Blakeson was partially inspired by real-life news stories about shady guardians like Marla Grayson. In an interview for the film’s press notes, Blakeson said, “It started when I saw news stories about real-life predatory guardians who game the system and exploit their wards. And I was horrified. Imagine opening your door one day and there is a person standing there holding a piece of paper that gives them total legal power over you. That idea terrified me—and seemed very relevant right now. It plugged into themes that I am interested in exploring —themes about the power of authority, about people vs profit, control vs freedom, humanity vs bureaucracy. It reminded me of Kafka’s The Trial​. I knew I had to explore it.”

If you want to go down a similar rabbit hole that Blakeson did, check out New Yorker reporter Rachel Aviv’s excellent 2017 essay on the guardianship phenomenon, “How the Elderly Lose Their Rights.” It’s a great read, and no doubt inspired many elements of Blakeson’s script. "  (From  Decider.)

I'm so glad I was able to let my mom stay in her own house.  In hindsight hiring a full time caregiver wasn't necessarily more expensive than a nursing home would have been, and far less disruptive.  But Jennifer Peterson never even had a choice.  The legal work was done behind her back by a series of corrupt transactions.  

I also think about a similar phenomenon in Alaska - payees.  These are people hired to take care of the money of people who are mentally or otherwise deemed unfit to take care of their own finances.  I have a mentee who has been scammed by a couple of payees.  There's really almost no oversight for these people who manage the money of people seen as unfit.  How can they possibly keep their payee accountable?  

One last story - Police Violence, Race-Based Trauma, and Mental Health among Filipina/x/o Americans.  This one is all too familiar, but it's is about a Filipino-American, not an African-American. It's co-authored by University of Alaska Anchorage's faculty member Dr. EJR David.  Here's an excerpt:

. . . Mr. Quinto experienced what seems like a mental health-related episode. Not knowing how to handle the situation, his sister and mother called 911 for help.

Police officers and emergency medical technicians were dispatched to the scene, but police officers arrived first. His mother and sister reported that Mr. Quinto had already calmed down when the police arrived and that he laid on the floor in his mother’s embrace. Nevertheless, the police still grabbed him off his mother, pinned him face down to the floor, and handcuffed him. One of the officers kneeled on his neck and back, while another officer held down his legs. Mr. Quinto’s sister and mother said he was not resisting or fighting back, but instead twice uttered: “Please don’t kill me”. After several minutes, he spat up blood from his mouth and lost consciousness. A cell phone video taken by his sister captured his limp body being taken away. Mr. Quinto died 3 days later. . .

The article goes on to put this into a larger context of the lack of mental health treatment, race, and police in the United States.