Alaska Legislature: MISC-20260722-1300

This meeting of the House Judiciary Committee will now come to order. The time is now 1:05 PM. 2:00 PM on Wednesday, July 22nd, 2026. We are meeting in the Denali Room of the Anchorage LIO, 1500 West Benson Boulevard. The following members are present: Representative Costello, Representative Mena, uh, Representative Vance is on the phone.

Is that correct?

Correct, I'm present. Perfect. Uh, Representative Aishide, Representative Underwood, and myself, Representative Gray, Chair. Let the record reflect that we have a quorum to conduct business. I would like to recognize staff supporting this meeting.

We have Sophia Tenney from House Records in Juneau. We have Ian Trimbley, Cassie Enter, and Tristan Williams from the Anchorage LIO, and my committee aide Dylan Hitchcock Lopez. If you need anything, get his attention. I will now hand the gavel over to Chair Carrick to call House State Affairs to order. This meeting of the House State Affairs Committee can also come to order.

And our members present for State Affairs include Representative Story on the phone, Representative St. Clair on the phone, Representative Vance on the phone, as stated previously. And then in the room, Representative McCabe, Representative Holland, and myself, Chair Carrick. And we also have a quorum. Thank you, Chair Carrick. And the gavel back over to Chair Gray.

So we are joined today by Director Carol Beecher from the Division of Elections. We had hoped to have Lieutenant Governor Nancy Dahlstrom here. We just learned via email that she will not be present, but we are very grateful to have Director Beecher here. And I'd like to just start by thanking you for being here today, and if you'd like to make an opening statement, we are ready for that, Director Beecher. Thank you.

For the record, Carol Beecher, Director of the Division of Elections. And I have an opening statement and then will plan to just kind of go through the history of what's transpired of late and then be available to answer questions and also to address the processes that the division uses for declarations of candidacy and complaints. And I don't know, Chair Gray, if you want to stop me in the middle of it with questions or prefer to wait until I am done? Let's wait until you are done. Do your whole statement.

Okay. Thank you. So, good afternoon, Chair Gray, Chair Carrick, committee members. Thank you for providing the Division of Elections with additional time to produce information and records requested by the committees on June 15th and June 19th. And for agreeing to postpone my appearance before your committees until today, July 22nd.

As you are aware, the Alaska Supreme Court has now ruled that Mr. Sullivan is an eligible candidate, and the division has printed and mailed absentee ballots for the August 18th primary election that include Mr. Sullivan and differentiate him from Senator Sullivan. It is my intention in this hearing to be as responsive as possible in answering your questions and providing information on the processes involved in addressing complaints and declarations of candidacy. I want to be clear that I am not an attorney, and there are some things that I may not be able to discuss. While the litigation over Mr. Sullivan's eligibility is resolved, with the Supreme Court's full opinion still to come. The Division is still in active litigation over another candidate's eligibility and faces the possibility of additional litigation.

The Division cannot reveal deliberative, executive, or attorney-client privileged communications or disclose legal strategy or analysis. For your convenience, we provided copies of our briefing and supporting documents filed in the Anchorage Superior Court and the Alaska Supreme Court cases which set the legal basis for the Division's decision. The core issue is the ballot integrity and voter confusion. The Division of Elections is statutorily charged under AS 15-15030 with ensuring that ballots facilitate fairness, simplicity, and clarity, accurately reflecting voter intent and allow for efficient election administration. And this duty is rooted in Alaska statutes and reinforced by case law under 6 AAC 25.212.

The division must also ensure that a candidate's name does not appear on the ballot in a manner that is confusing or misleading to voters or compromises the fairness or neutrality of the ballot. This unprecedented and challenging situation arose when two candidates, incumbent Senator Dan Sullivan and Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., requested to appear on the ballot with identical names and party designations, indicating that Mr. Sullivan intended to confuse voters, creating the risk that voters would, in fact, be confused.

The Division acted then to prevent manipulation of the ballot and to protect voters from purposeful confusion, consistent with its responsibility to maintain fair, neutral, and trustworthy elections. Upon receiving the complaints and evidence suggesting Mr. Sullivan's candidacy was filed to confuse voters, the Division determined, based on the declaration of candidacy and additional evidence submitted, that he was ineligible. Evidence in the record showed that Mr. Sullivan had never previously used Dan Sullivan in state records. He had never affiliated before as a Republican in 40 years of Alaska voter history. His campaign website mirrored the incumbent's website design and branding, and he requested by email to appear as Dan S. Sullivan despite his middle initial being Gene J., even though he later corrected this himself.

Mr. Sullivan did not act like other candidates in my experience. He made no attempt to distinguish himself on the ballot. He seemed confused himself. He didn't immediately address the division's concerns with his candidacy after it was challenged, as other candidates have always done. And he appeared intent on creating confusion on the ballot.

Based on these facts, the Division determined that the declaration was filed with the purpose of confusing or misleading the electorate, making it not properly filed under AS 15-25-060. And I should add that Mr. Sullivan did not question the facts of the Division's declaration— decision and has not questioned the facts since. The Division has consistently recognized that this was an action that it had not taken before. But believed this present situation presented unique and concerning facts which it could not pretend to not notice. The Division understood all along that this action could be challenged in court and recognizes the court's authority to review these important questions.

The Superior Court and Supreme Court have ruled on this matter, and the Division acted immediately to place Mr. Sullivan back on the ballot. The issue of how the name would appear on the ballot was discussed at both the Supreme Court and the Superior Court. The Supreme Court specifically chose not to adopt the portion of the Superior Court's decision as to how the names should appear on the ballot, and that left the decision to the discretion of the Division. The Division distinguished between the two candidates by using Mr. Sullivan's full name, omitting his party affiliation and adding the incumbent designation for Senator Sullivan. This was done to maximize the differentiation between these candidates so that we, we did not want any voters to be confused between the two candidates.

They will appear on the ballot next to each other for all but one House district in a field of 16 candidates based on the way that The names rotate per statute. And I can't get into the legal justifications for this because I'm not a lawyer and this could still be litigated. The division provided notice to the candidates on June 29th. The first round of ballots were printed on June 30th and mailed on July 2nd and 3rd. The division has not received any legal objections from either of the candidates to the way the names appear.

For details about the justifications for finding Mr. Sullivan ineligible, um, I would suggest that you also review the Division's two determination letters and the filings in the courts. These were posted on the court's website, um, on the Division's website, and are included in the documents. But I can speak to some of the justifications here. States have the authority under the U.S. Constitution to regulate the time, place, and manner of holding elections, including measures to prevent fraud and confusion. The Division's good faith candidacy analysis was not an additional qualification for office, but a procedural safeguard to— for ballot integrity similar to the signature requirements, filing deadlines, anti-confusion measures that have been upheld in the courts.

Alaska law requires that candidates have properly filed under AS 1525-060, and the Division is authorized to investigate and resolve eligibility complaints within 30 days using the preponderance of evidence standard. Further, the Division has discretion in ballot design to ensure clarity and avoid confusion, as Supreme Court recognized. With both Sullivans appearing adjacent to each other on all but one name rotation, differentiation was essential. In this instance, as I noted, we did not include the new requested party affiliation designation as a way to differentiate between the candidates, and we used the incumbent next to Senator Sullivan. This balances— this design balances the challenger's interest in ballot access with the interest of the voters and the state in fair elections.

Further, the Division's ballot design does not unduly burden Mr. Sullivan's right to associate with the Republican Party. The Division kept his affiliation in other publications, and he remains free to campaign and communicate his Republican affiliation outside of the ballot. A candidate's personal preferences or messaging priorities do not create a right to have specific information printed on the ballot. The ballot is not a forum for campaign expression, and the Division is not constitutionally required to include information beyond what is necessary for election administration. In closing, the ballot design is a discretion— is essential to prevent— excuse me— confusion.

This is about the voter's rights to vote for the candidate they intend to vote for. This situation presented unique and deliberate voter confusion risks. The Division acted consistent with its duty to maintain ballot integrity clarity and to administer fair elections which give effect to voter intent and allow for accurate counting of votes. The division respects the authority and the decision of the court and acted immediately to implement it. That's my opening statement.

I could now answer questions or go forward with processes. Thank you, Director Beecher. I think we'll ask some questions about what you just said, if that's okay. Sure. So I'd like to begin— you referred to the challenger is Daniel J. Sullivan and the senator is Dan Sullivan.

But in the email from Daniel J. Sullivan to the Lieutenant Governor on June 10th, he states, quote, "Like the incumbent, I also go by Dan. I have publicly gone by Dan Sullivan as long as I can remember," end quote. So my question is, why must he be listed as Daniel, but the U.S. senator will be listed as Dan. This was a choice by the division, and it's a bit of first in time, first in place, that Dan Sullivan has already been on the ballot prior as Dan Sullivan, is known as Dan Sullivan, so it was simply a way to differentiate between the two.

Representative McCabe. Thanks, Chair Gray. So, Director Beecher, thanks for being here. Welcome to the hot seat.

I think I heard you say that the Petersburg Daniel J. Sullivan has been known on every other state document as Daniel. Maybe that will help flesh that out. Did you say that kind of at the beginning of your statement? Through the Chair, Representative McCabe. That is correct.

On the declaration of candidacy, he listed himself as I, Daniel J. Sullivan, and in the voter registrations that we have, he always listed himself as Daniel J. Sullivan, sometimes Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. Sure. Thanks. So you have voter registrations, I think you said going back 40 years, and he has always been Daniel J. Sullivan or Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. and could you tell me How many— when did he change? Is he always filed as a— when he registered, is he always registered as a Democrat or an independent or an undeclared or Republican? You said something in there that up until this year he had always been a different party.

Can you flesh that out, or is that one of those that's not a— you can't say? Through the chair, Representative McCabe, I don't have the registrations in front of me, but I can tell you what I recall, and I believe it is in the record as well. When he initially— in his initial registration, I believe it was undeclared. And for the most part, that is— that was what his political affiliation was. At one point in the 2023, I believe, it might have been '24, he listed himself as on an absentee ballot as independent.

From that then was changed to the Alaska Independence Party. And so remained that for the year of '24 until that was disbanded. And then all of the individuals who had not contacted the division to change their affiliation were automatically put into unaffiliated. Thanks. Thanks.

Um, before, um, we do more questions, I just want to acknowledge other legislators we have in the room. We have Senator Gray Jackson, we have Representative Donna Mears, we have Representative Julie Calhoun, and we have Representative Elise Galvin. Thanks for joining us. Director Beecher, is Senator Dan Sullivan's voter registration Daniel Sullivan?

Through the— Representative Gray, Chair, I believe that it is Dan Sullivan, but I would have to look at that record. Thank you. I believe it's Daniel Sullivan. And I would also like to point out that we have someone in the building not present here, Andrew Josephson, and all of his documents he's listed as Andrew Josephson. However, he appears on the ballot as Andy Josephson.

So I think we have a good history of folks having official documentation of saying Andrew, but allowing them to run for office as Andy and allowing that name Andy, which doesn't appear as their legal name, to appear on the ballot as the candidate's name. So I just wanted to offer that perspective. And before we open up to additional questions, Representative McKay brought up the party affiliation. So I just wanted to mention that Dustin Darden ran for state house in 2016 as part of the Alaska Independence Party. He ran for state house in 2018, uh, as a Democrat.

He ran in 2022 for U.S. Senate as Alaska Independence Party, and then he's running this year, uh, for U.S. Senate as Republican Party. And I'm just curious how being AIP Democrat, AIP Republican, that seems even more flipping around, then Dan J. Sullivan being AIP, unaffiliated, and Republican. He's never been a registered Democrat, whereas Dustin Darden has been a registered Democrat. How often has the Division of Elections researched or investigated Dustin Darden's party affiliation to make sure it's legitimate and should appear on the ballot as such? Do the chair— or Chairman Gray, sorry.

I am not aware that that has been raised as an issue with that individual. I will say that the appearance on the ballot as Dan or Daniel or any of those things was just one piece of this entire issue before the Division. So it wasn't a situation of simply a name of Dan, it was all of these facts taken together that showed an intent to confuse. And it showed an attempt to be as similar to the Senator Sullivan as possible. And so it was a compilation of those things together that were taken into consideration in this situation.

So it wasn't a singular decision that because he changed his affiliation to Republican, as many other want to do, it was— the compilation of all of these things taken together. A comment and then a question. So the comment is that what I'm hearing is that just because he's been called Dan Sullivan for 70 years, because I believe he is 70 years old, that, um, that was not a good enough reason for him to appear as Dan Sullivan on the ballot because it was your belief that him appearing as Dan Sullivan on the ballot would be confusing to, uh, Chair Gray. That's correct. It was not just that his name would be confusing as Dan Sullivan.

Well, let me back up. So appearing on the ballot, once he was required to be on the ballot, then the question became, how can we make sure that the voters know the difference between these two candidates? And just using the name Dan for both, we decided it was too confusing for the voters. My question is about how somebody becomes a registered Republican or a registered Democrat. I can speak for myself.

When I moved back to Alaska in 2017 and I went to the DMV, they asked me if I wanted to register to vote, and I said yes. And they said, what do you want your party to be? And I said Democrat. And it's my understanding that that's the process of being a registered Democrat, is you just say that you are. Is that correct?

Uh, Chair Gray, yes, you can designate— you can contact the division and ask for what you want as your political affiliation. That's correct. And is it also true that when you fill out your candidate ballot, your application to be a candidate, and it asks what you want your party to appear as, when you write a different party, you are effectively registering for that different party? Chair Gray, yes, that's correct. Thank you.

Chair Carrick. Thank you. Thank you very much for being here, Director Beecher. I really appreciate your presence today at this hearing. I have a couple of questions.

The first is, I'm really grateful to hear from you that the— this particular race, just like any other, the candidates' names on the ballot will rotate by the House district. And I know that there was a recent request from the incumbent Dan Sullivan's campaign to have that not be the case. So first, I wanted to confirm— I wanted you to just restate again that candidates on this race, as with any other race, will have their names rotating on the ballot, and they'll be listed, you know, first and second, then second and third, then third and fourth by House District.

Chair Kerik, if I'm understanding your question correctly, yes, the names are rotated alphabetically for U.S. Senators. And so with each House district, the name on the top falls to the bottom, and that next— the name next to it rises up one. And so that's the way for each House district you'll see the names move through the ballot. Excellent.

And I have another question. I also just wanted to follow up on what Chair Gray was asking about. I'm not familiar with any race where someone has filed for office with a party affiliation requested to be on the ballot and then it not be listed on the ballot. So, do we have any examples where that has been the case? Chair Carrick, we do not.

This was an unprecedented and unique situation, and to my knowledge, this has not occurred before. We also do not anticipate anticipate it would happen again.

Okay. I think I just have a follow-up, if I could, as a comment. I'm really concerned about the precedence that that sets regarding party affiliation listing. We know that we have several districts in Alaska. I'll just give an example of my own district.

It's fairly left-leaning. It's a bluish district. It would really concern me to see a potential challenger not have their party affiliation listed just because I was the incumbent in the district. And I, I'm concerned that in this case you're saying that the preponderance of name and party affiliation led to this decision. I don't know that in the next case it would be such a strong example of looking at a preponderance of evidence and I just want to know a little bit more about the decision to not include the party registration in this case, because I'm a little concerned for what it could mean for the future, especially as I look at the sample ballot, and it's very stark, that drop-off, where every other candidate who is registered for the race has a party affiliation listed, except for Dan J. Sullivan.

And so, could you talk a little bit more about the decision to not include that party affiliation?

Chair Carrick, what I can say is that the intent of the division in designing the ballot in this way was to ensure that the voters know very clearly which Dan or Daniel Sullivan they are voting for. So the decision was made based on that, that need and requirement for the division to make sure the voter intent was clear. And in order to do that, we took these steps to not include the party affiliation for Mr. Sullivan.

Thanks. We'll go to Representative Holland and then Representative Eichide and then Representative Mena and then Representative McCabe again. Representative Holland. Thank you, Chair. And through the Chair, thank you for being here today.

I had two things I just wanted to bring up at this point in our discussion for clarification primarily. The first one addresses the issue of being eligible or ineligible. And as I understand, AS 1525-060 that we've been looking at, it generally seems to be focused in on the requirement that the ballots offer clarity to the voter. And yet, we see in this case that there are issues of clarity around— the different candidates whereby, as I understood it, the differentiation of their name, their party, their website, I believe you mentioned, their acting like a candidate, started to become factors that were used to determine the eligibility for this candidate to be listed. And I'm curious for, again, more clarification.

Do you feel like the current statutes, um, and perhaps regulations are offering the, um, definition and clarity necessary for the Division of Elections to be able to handle this type of situation? Um, and do we need to be considering that there are some changes that would be helpful in the future? It seems you've characterized this as kind of an unprecedented situation, I think you've characterized it as one that hopefully would not happen again in the same way. What might we be thinking we should be doing as we look at the statutes that might have provided more clarity to you and the Division to perform your duties, but for us and the electorate to feel more comfortable about the way it was done and the clarity of how those candidates will be considered? And ultimately judged to be appropriate candidates and listed the way they would want to be listed.

Any thoughts on what we can do to clarify this and what you've learned from this process? Through the Chair, Representative Holland, the division clearly felt that the statute was— did allow for the division to make the decision it did. I will say that the Supreme Court's ruling, the full briefing, has not yet been published, so they may address some of these things in their, in their briefing that will help to bring clarity to this. At this juncture, I'm not prepared, I would say, to offer suggestions regarding statutory changes that may be more helpful, but that would certainly be something that is a very worthy discussion after all of these things are worked through. Thank you.

Follow-up, please. Thank you for that. The second item I wanted to ask you about is you indicated the intent to provide, I think you said, uh, a maximum differentiation between the two candidates. And yet, I understand the statutes to also suggest that there needs to be care in the use of certain, um, honorific titles and other, um, information on the ballot that might overly distinguish a candidate in some way that would be perhaps unfair in the information they had. And it's been suggested that being listed as an incumbent might cross that line.

And I'm wondering how— if you could maybe clarify what you are offering in terms of the criteria or rubric that you might have used to maximize differentiation without crossing the line into providing advantage and providing other characteristics that might actually perhaps bias or in a different way mislead voters into who might be the better candidate in there. So this maximum differentiation kind of concerned me. I wonder if maybe you could clarify how you view that and how you view it consistent with the statutes and regulations. Through the Chair, Representative Holland, I appreciate your question. I'm not sure that I'm able to answer fully at this point.

So, I'm hesitating because I'm not sure what I'm able to say beyond that there were many discussions about how to differentiate, and the end conclusion was that this would make sure that we were maintaining the integrity of the ballot and removing any kind of purposeful confusion for the voter so that their intent was clear. And that was the goal, to make sure that the voter's intent was clear on who they're voting for. And we recognize that we have not used incumbent before to designate the incumbent. We do do that on the publication, the official election pamphlet. It is clearly designated that way, and online as well.

Um, this is there, but we haven't used it on the ballot before. But in this situation felt that that was one more way to make sure that the voter intent was clear on— that they knew who they were voting for. Great. Thank you, Director. That's good for now.

Thank you. Thank you. Representative Eichheidt. Thank you, Chair Gray. Through the Chair, thank you, Director Beecher, for being here.

I have a question about the party affiliation. I was going to ask a question about Mr. Dustin Darden that Chair Gray brought up. But I guess, am I free as a candidate to register to the— with the party of choice that I want to affiliate with? Am I free to do that? Through the Chair, Representative Eichide, yes, you are free to do that.

And as a follow-up, I don't need approval from executives that manage that party, is that correct? Through the Chair, Representative Aishad, that is correct. So I just— I'm curious why Mr. Dan J. Sullivan from Petersburg, why he was not allowed to register on the ballot as a Republican, why that was not allowed. I've had people actually at this dais suggest I change my party affiliation. Um, and, um, it seems like that's a free speech right, and I understand you're trying to maximize, uh, clarity, but it also seems like you violate the person's right to run as in the party that they would like to, as Mr. Dustin Darden has obviously done.

Can you just explain a little bit of the rationale by not calling Mr. Dan J. Sullivan a Republican when that was his request? Through the Chair, Representative Eichide. What I can say is that it was part of the discussion and thought about how can we make sure— and I know I'm repeating myself, so I apologize— but it was just part of the way to make sure that— the differentiation between the two was really clear. There is not a mandate for the political affiliation to be on the ballot. And that doesn't preclude Mr. Sullivan from associating or affiliating himself with the Republican Party.

And as I noted, it still has his affiliation online and in the official election pamphlets that are sent out to every voter household, so it's still listed there. It's just not going to be on the ballot because we want to make sure that the voters know specifically who they're voting for. Thank you. Just as a follow-up, you said it wasn't a mandate, but has it been the practice of Division of Elections, has it been the precedent to list the party affiliation that the candidate requests? Has that been the overwhelming past practice?

Through the Chair, Representative Eichide, yes. That has been the past practice. Thank you. Thanks. Before we go to Representative McCabe, just two quick questions about the request that Dan J. Sullivan answer— respond to questions under oath.

I'm curious if the Division of Elections has ever asked other candidates to respond to questions under oath. And this was a June 8th request to Dan J. Sullivan. Through the chair— Chair Gray, so you are referring to the request from the Lieutenant Governor's investigation? Yes, that is correct. The division has not requested that prior to my knowledge.

Thank you. So this was a first-time request? Correct. Thank you. I forgot Representative Mena.

Representative McCabe. Thank you, Chair Gray. Through the Chair to Director Beecher, thank you for being here today. I just wanted to build off Representative Eichides and Representative Carrick's line of questioning, and I also share that concern about, uh, not having that party affiliation on the ballot. I know that the division must work on helping to distinguish these two candidates, but I just worry about not having that party affiliation, and we are meeting a goal of voters knowing that the Sullivans are different, but what are we doing at the expense of removing information related to party affiliation that is provided for everybody else?

So my question is, where—. How—. Where are the requirements for how you display affiliation, perhaps incumbency? Is that regulation, or is that truly at the discretion of the division director.

Through the Chair, Representative Mena, the— sorry, I'm not the attorney in the room. So the statutes do speak to the individual having party affiliation, but whether or not it has to be on the ballot We believe that that has been left to the discretion of the division, and in line with that, we made that determination. However, as I mentioned in my opening statement, it also could still be litigated, and so where it goes from there, I don't know, but our current stance and the way that we put him on the ballot was without the party affiliation. Believing that we have the ability to design the ballot to ensure no voter confusion as to who they're voting for. Thank you.

And just a quick follow-up statement through the chair. I think what I'm particularly interested in is, you know, making sure that voters aren't confused, but also ensuring that there is an equity of information about the candidates that Alaskans are voting for. Thank you.

Thanks. Representative McCabe. Thank you, Chair Gray. So, Director, does the division exist primarily to protect the voters, or is it for the benefit of the candidates?

Through the Chair, Representative McCabe, it's— I believe that the core responsibility of the division is to protect the voters and to protect the integrity of the ballot. Thanks. Follow-up? So when those interests appear to conflict, is it fair to say that you would fall on the side of the voters? I mean, that should be the— I think you just said it, but that should be your primary goal, right, is making sure that the voters understand clearly what, who they are voting for.

I mean, maybe there's voters that want to vote for the guy from Petersburg and they would mistakenly vote for Senator Dan S. Sullivan. So, so really you're protecting both sides. I think we're seeming to focus— and I'm not sure where the Dustin Darden thing came from. This is a hearing about a different case. So, it seems to me that you were protecting the voters in this case.

You're trying to differentiate two candidates with similar names, and this is how you've chosen to do it. And you said earlier in your statement that you have the freedom to do that. I mean, are those all fair statements?

Through the Chair, Representative McCabe. Yes, I would agree. Thank you. Just a comment, just to make clarity. This is not a hearing.

This is a hearing about how candidates appear on the ballot, how the Division decides when candidates shouldn't appear on the ballot, and I think that we should look at the whole history of how we've done it in Alaska and make sure that we're consistent in treating everyone fairly. So this really isn't about one— if this was portrayed as a hearing about one individual, then I've misrepresented that, Representative McCavenagh, and for that I apologize. Thanks. I appreciate that. But, but it is a hearing about one unique novel case that happened this time.

So there's really no— maybe I could ask that. Is there any examples of where this has happened before, where somebody has filed at the last minute after the incumbent with the same name and you've had to differentiate like that? Is there any examples? Through the chair, Representative McCabe, there are not. This was definitely an unprecedented and challenging situation, and we have not encountered it before and hope to not encounter it in the future.

Thanks. Thanks. And I'll just point out again that, uh, Dan Sullivan— Mayor Dan Sullivan did appear on a ballot when Dan S. Sullivan ran for U.S. Senate at the same time. They weren't on the same— running for the same office, but we've had candidates of the same name on the same piece of paper before. And as I've pointed out before, there is an Andrew Gray who is a politician in the Fairbanks area who has run for office and is in the database if you look for my name.

I have never lived in Fairbanks. That person is not me. So the, the fact that we hope that it never happens again, I think there's a good chance that it could happen again because certain people like myself who have very common names may choose to run for office, and all of us with that same name have the right to run for office. Representative Costello. Thank you, Chair Gray, and thank you, Ms. Beecher, for being here today in front of the Joint Committees.

So I realize it's not your job, but I'm curious to know whose job is it to determine whether a candidate is intentionally attempting to confuse voters? Through the chair, Representative Costello. I do believe it is the job of the Division when we are confronted with these kinds of facts that we can't pretend not to notice that this is occurring. And so, we have to make a decision on how to protect the voter when— when there's an intent to confuse. And that was the set of facts that we were dealing with in this situation where all of the things put together showed someone who was trying to be as similar to the sitting senator as possible and not trying to be different, but was clearly intending purposeful confusion of the voter.

And so we felt that that was definitely our role and responsibility to do something about that. Follow-up. And currently, as far as you're aware, there's no consequences for an individual who is intentionally trying to confuse voters? Through the chair, Representative Costello, no, there is, there is not to my knowledge, at least not in Alaska law.

Just one follow-up. Are you—. Is there federal consequences for this to intentionally confuse voters? Through the chair, Representative Costello. I'm not aware of any.

All right, thank you. Um, we'll have another queue of questions, but before we get there, I— this is about your opening statement, Director Beecher, when you talked about your position that he was intending to confuse. I would like to quote from his email to Lieutenant Governor Nancy Dahlstrom on June 10th on That email, he talks about his website, and he says, quote, "It features multiple prominent photographs of me. I look nothing like Senator Sullivan. It describes my background and life experience, which is very different from Senator Sullivan's.

It includes a press release that says in the very first line that I am running against the incumbent senator," um, end quote. I just think that That's true. His website did have lots of pictures of him, and he doesn't look like Senator Dan Sullivan. And he does state that he is running against the incumbent Senator Sullivan. So to me, the average person looking at that website knows that that is not U.S.

Senator Dan Sullivan's website. That's a different person. So I'm curious about, um, the evidence that his purpose was to confuse and that he wasn't running for, as it said, in good faith?

Chair Gray, so again, it wasn't just one thing that was put before the Division. It was the compilation of all of these things. And in regards to the website, it was similar in format. Yes, his picture is different. You could say that they both are older-looking gentlemen, but it was the placement of where the picture was, it's the color, the font, those things were very similar.

And again, it was one piece of many that brought the division to the conclusion that this individual was running to be as similar to the sitting senator as possible and not to be differentiated. And I want to follow up on my own question, which is, it's an email to Lieutenant Governor Nancy Dahlstrom, and I'm just curious about if the Lieutenant Governor's office has ever been the one to handle investigations of candidates before, rather than the division. Through the Chair, Representative Gray— or Chair Gray, sorry. I am not aware of, of that occurring.

My follow-up to that is that Dan J. Sullivan responded to the division in writing on June 3rd, and then counsel to Governor Dunleavy, Stephen Cox, emailed you and Lieutenant Governor at 8:34 PM that night on June 3rd. On June 8th, the lieutenant governor took over the investigation and asked for sworn— a sworn statement from Dan J. Sullivan, which we've stated before that we're not aware of asking for candidates for sworn statements before. Um, can you— what impact did, uh, Stephen Cox have on the decision for the lieutenant governor to intervene in this particular investigation?

Chair Gray, I'm not aware of what impact he had. Okay. I can't answer that. Representative Carrick. Thank you again, and thank you, Director Beecher, for this conversation.

I have another question which I wish was rhetorical, but I am seriously asking. Does the Division of Elections have a responsibility to protect incumbents over new candidates? Chair Carrick, no. The Division does not have a responsibility to specific candidates. It has a responsibility to the voters to make sure that the voter intent is clear, that we protect the integrity of the electoral process, and that we prevent purposeful manipulation of the ballot.

And as a follow-up, can you Talk— you mentioned it in your opening statement, but can you talk me through again how the decision was made to list Dan J. Sullivan as Daniel and to not include his party affiliation, and why that was the decision?

Chair Carrick, the decision was made to design the ballot in such a way that the intent of the voter was clear. That the voter could look at the ballot and understand the difference between those two candidates, because they obviously have the same name except for the middle initial. And so that was the intent, that was the purpose, and that was why the division ended up with what you see for the current primary ballot. And as a follow-up, I heard you mention earlier in the opening statement that part of the decision-making here was that Dan S. Sullivan had this first in time, first in place categorization. He is an incumbent and presumably filed first.

And I just wonder how much that has to do with the decision-making, because when I think about Alaskan voters, I think generally when I talk to people, more information is desired rather than less information. I think about left-leaning voters right now in my community who may want to vote for Dan J. Sullivan and then find out that he's actually really right-leaning on issues and decide he's not a candidate they want to support. Having his party affiliation may help those voters feel like they're more informed and directed to a candidate they would rather support. But not having his affiliation included there seems to provide less information and be more confusing. And I, I wonder if there was a randomized process the Division could have undertaken to determine which of these two Dan Sullivans was going to be listed with their party affiliation if it was determined that listing the same party affiliation for both was problematic.

It doesn't appear that that was a random decision. That it was a decision based on the incumbency of Dan S. Sullivan rather than we're going to flip a coin and see whose party affiliation we're going to list. The concern that I have about that just goes back to the whole purpose of this hearing, to Representative McCabe's earlier point about the intent is to support the voters and have a trusted nonpartisan elections office. I—. The appearance is that this was partisan decision-making, and I don't want to imply that unnecessarily.

But when we hear the, the information about how that decision was made, first in time, first in place, I don't know if that decision would be made for every incumbent. And if so, I don't know if voters would like there to be a bias for incumbents. From the Division of Elections other than just listing someone as an incumbent, which I agree was the right maneuver for the Division of Elections to distinguish between candidates. So other than listing incumbent by Dan S. Sullivan, why was it felt we needed to do more to distinguish the incumbent candidate in this race? And would that be the standard going forward?

Chair Carrick, first, let me just state that my statement of first in time, first in place was not the providing or leading reason. That was a comment from me of a way of thinking of it that he— Dan Sullivan, Senator Sullivan has been on the ballot prior as Dan Sullivan. He's known as Dan Sullivan in Alaska. Whether or not that would be used as a— something that would be in the future would depend on the facts of whatever was happening in the future. But as far as the way that the ballot was designed, I'm certain that there could be many arguments about different ways that it could have been done, should have been done, but in the end, this was the decision that the division made.

Under what we have the authority to do with designing the ballot, and it was determined this would be the most distinctive and— distinctive way to differentiate between the two. I understand your concerns, but in the end, this was a decision that we made.

And just as a quick follow-up, should this exact circumstance— like, an Andrew Gray, Andrew Gray situation, or another candidate, happen again, would the expectation be that the incumbent would automatically keep their registration as they filed it, their party affiliation as they filed it, and the candidate challenging them would not? If this exact situation happened again, would that become the precedent for the Division?

Chair Kerik, that would call for me to speculate on something that hasn't happened, hopefully won't happen again, and so I can't speculate on what we would do. I— it would depend on all of the facts of that situation. If it was an identical situation, then likely it would end up with the same result, but that calls for speculation of what might occur in the future. Okay, thank you. Representative McCabe.

Thanks, Chair Gray. So maybe I shouldn't ask this, but I'm going to anyways. Who filed first? Through the chair, Representative McCabe, Senator Sullivan filed first. And so he requested that the name— I'm sorry, follow-up.

He requested that his name be Dan S. Sullivan on the ballot, or he requested his first name be Dan on the ballot. So he's the first one to request— that's what I think I heard you say when you said first in place, or—. Yes. Through the chair, yes, he requested Dan Sullivan on the ballot, and he— I believe that he filed his declaration of candidacy. I could be wrong.

I think you have the documents, but I believe it was in January. Follow-up. So just as a— just to kind of maybe put a nail in this one, have you or anybody in your division ever met the Petersburg guy to where you would know if his name was Dan for the last 70 years? Through the chair, Representative McCabe, I have never met the gentleman. So no, I would not know.

So, okay. Thanks. That's enough. I appreciate that line of questioning, Representative McCabe, because I think it really points to the purpose of the hearing. What role does Division of Elections have in investigating what nicknames people use or what their good faith intention is.

And since good faith intention has come up as a reason to— for him initially to not appear on the ballot, I'm just curious, in your opinion, Director Beecher, what does it mean for a candidate to have a good faith intention to serve?

Chair Gray, I suppose I would say that in my opinion, that it would be someone who actually wants to win and is running because they want to get the seat. And in this situation, the— all of the facts that were presented to the Division were that this was an individual who was not running to be what I would call a true candidate. This individual was running to confuse the ballot. It was an intentional attempt to gain access to the ballot for the purpose of confusing. My follow-up to that is that I, I don't know, I wish, I wish I had the ballot in front of me, and there's 18 candidates for U.S. Senate, maybe?

I might get the number wrong. I believe there's 16. 16.

Well, my guess is that the vast majority of them, most of us know are not going to serve, they don't have a good chance of winning. So I guess, how do you decide if someone— I'm just curious about— I know you're not a lawyer— the legal basis, the legal authority to decide, well, this person can't win, they can't actually serve, so they shouldn't appear on the ballot. I mean, there's at least 10 of them who probably can't— that have no chance of winning, but yet we're allowing them to appear on the ballot.

Rep— Chair Gray, I'm— if your question is that would the Division try to determine intent of people to be on the ballot, the Division's position is that many people run for office for many, many different reasons. But in this case, this appeared to be an individual who is running for the purpose of confusing the ballot. So that is a completely different situation than someone who is running who may have other reasons for it, but their name is distinctive, they're different, and they are trying to be different. That has been the experience of the Division, is that people distinguish themselves, trying to be— to stick out on the ballot and stick out on their campaign materials so that you know who they are. And in this case, all of the facts that were presented to the Division and what we saw was that this individual was not trying to be different.

This individual was trying to be as similar as he could to the sitting senator for the purpose of confusing the ballot— and we know with ranked choice, with the top 4 that go, it could definitely impact who ends up on the general ballot. Director Beecher, I'm going to overspeak and say some things that I probably shouldn't say, but I'll just say when I first started looking at this case, I kind of agreed with the general sentiment that this was some sort of crazy trick and that this Dan J. Sullivan, Petersburg was pulling a fast one to confuse everybody, but thankfully, because of the 1,500 documents that your office has provided, and I've spent so much time reading them, the more I read and the more I look at the correspondence that he, you know, he states he never had any discussion with the Petola campaign. All of these sort of things that were out in the zeitgeist that he was working with the Petola campaign, that he was working with the Democratic Party, all of that, there's no evidence to support any of that. And my position has shifted over time that maybe, maybe he's not part of the Petola campaign. Maybe he has nothing to do with the Democratic Party.

Maybe he was just really frustrated with the sitting US senator and wanted to run against him, knowing he had no chance of winning, but that's what he wanted to do. And so I'm curious, you know, the 1,500 documents, that you've sent, and I'm very grateful for. Where is the evidence that he did this to trick voters, to mislead the voters whom we are here to protect?

Chair Gray, I believe the evidence is in the materials that were provided to the division and in the letter that we sent to him, which you have in your record. And the information that we were presented with painted for us a picture of someone who was trying to confuse the ballot. Is it fair to say that the case of Dan J. Sullivan was the only time the Division has relied on a good faith intent to serve to find evaluating a candidate's eligibility for office? Chair Gray, that is my understanding, but Unless there's been something in the far past that I'm not aware of. Well, your July 20th, 2026 letter to the committee explicitly stated the division, quote, "has no records responsive," quote, to the request for documents concerning good faith intent to serve.

So this would be the first time that you've tried to prove or disprove that someone had a good faith intent to serve.

It—. I just think if I give this candidate the benefit of the doubt, that he wanted to run for this office and we're denying it based on the National Republican Senatorial Committee's complaints, you know, these other organizations sort of assuming what I and many others assumed when they first saw it, that that is a disservice to voters because maybe they want— maybe voters are being denied the chance to vote for Petersburg Dan Sullivan, a retired teacher. Maybe they want to vote for him and we're denying them that chance. It sounds ridiculous, but like, now that I've read so much of the correspondence, I actually think there's a chance that this is not someone who's just out trying to pull a fast one.

I would respond to that, Chair Gray, by saying, "Well, he is on the ballot." So the court found that— did not agree with the Division's argument insofar as what it looks like on the surface until we get the full briefing from the Supreme Court, but he is on the ballot, and so individuals do have the opportunity to vote for him. And they can know, based on the distinctive way in which he is displayed on the ballot, who they're voting for. Thank you, Director Beecher. Representative Carrick. Thank you, Chair Gray.

So just a really quick question to what you were saying earlier. I can't tell you the number of candidates I've talked to over the years who say, I know I can't win, but I just want voters to have a choice. They don't really do any campaigning. And really, as far as the Division of Elections is concerned, it doesn't really matter what a candidate does once they've registered, whether they campaign or don't campaign, whether they really think they've got a chance at winning even when they have no chance to win, or they have every chance to win. And I, again, I'm worried about precedence.

I think that this is a really extreme example, as you've mentioned. It's an unprecedented circumstance, but the decisions being made could create a precedence for potential later situations of this type. Is it, is it the responsibility of the Division of Elections Say, if I had an opponent that I thought was running just to put their name out there and, you know, help stimulate their business, for example, just something completely unrelated to elections, is it the Division of Elections' responsibility to potentially investigate that intent because of a complaint from my campaign? And that's a— I don't know the answer to that. Is that the responsibility of the Division of Elections?

Chair Carrick, I believe the responsibility of the division is— really has to do with the ballot and preventing purposeful confusion of the ballot. So a situation where somebody else was running would— it's not the same situation that we are confronting here. The division's decision would be made based on protecting the voter from someone who's intentionally confusing the ballot or is attempting to access the ballot for the purpose of confusing. That was the determination that the Division made in this situation. The court did not agree, and Mr. Sullivan is now on the ballot.

So, what— in your situation, I can't speak to that. Seen those sets of facts, but in this situation, that was what the division looked at, and we feel that that is one of our core responsibilities, is to make sure that we know voter intent when they are voting, that the voter knows who they are voting for. And in this situation, all of these things have transpired as a result of that. I just have one quick follow-up, and I genuinely don't know the answer to this question, so I'm just asking I know when the Alaska Public Officers Commission receives a complaint, they have to follow up on that complaint. If the Division of Elections receives a complaint about the ballot— I, I get we're narrowly talking about the ballot today— are you obligated to follow up on those complaints?

And what in this case, um, I guess what was— if you could speak a little bit to the trigger point where it was determined that the Division of Elections needed to get statements under oath from Dan J. Sullivan about his intentions.

Chair Carrick, so the— there were a lot of things, if I could just say, that were happening at the same time. So the investigation by the Lieutenant Governor was happening at the same time that we then were getting complaints. So as regards to what the division does for investigating something, generally it is that we get a complaint and that follows all of the statutory procedures. You know, there has to be a certain amount of words and regulatory things that we make sure that— and it has to be done within 10 days of someone filing their candidacy, et cetera. So those are the things that generally happen with regards to the division investigating.

However, the division is given the authority to investigate even if we didn't have a complaint, if we saw something that was concerning regarding a candidate's eligibility. One more follow-up, if I can. Can you just detail any other circumstances where the division has determined there's an eligibility question relating to intent to confuse?

Chair Carrick, I cannot. Okay, thanks.

I have Representative Costello and then Representative Holland, and but just on the intent to confuse, I think that Eric Hafner, a prisoner in New York who'd never stepped foot in Alaska, and I know this was the courts that decided that he had to appear on the ballot, but You know, him appearing on the ballot as a legitimate Democratic candidate to the less informed voter definitely confused people. I mean, he got over 1,000 votes of folks who probably didn't know that he was incarcerated in New York and would be incarcerated and not be able to serve and would be in New York. And so I think I would argue that we've had candidates appear on our ballots before whose intent— maybe their intent wasn't to confuse, but they absolutely did confuse voters and they absolutely could have swung elections one way or another. Representative Costello. Thank you.

Ms. Beecher, did Petersburg's Dan email the division and ask that his name be on the ballot as Dan S. Sullivan?

Representative— or through the Chair, Representative Costello In answer to a question that I had posed to both candidates, I asked them how they would prefer to be on the ballot in order to avoid confusion. And his response, his initial response, was Dan S. Sullivan. So just so I'm clear, Petersburg Dan, whose middle initial is J, asked to be on the ballot as Dan S. Sullivan, which is identical to our Senator Senator Sullivan's name? Through the chair, yes. Representative Costello, that is correct.

Okay, well, to me that seems like evidence that there's an intent to confuse the voter, and it seems to me like that might be trying to impersonate the incumbent, and I would just like to get that on the record. I also think that we need to put this in context of the actual situation. We're talking about a United state Senate seat that's high stakes with millions and millions of dollars being poured into both of the top, you know, candidates. And so my question is, you know, you have to look at who benefits if the voter is confused and who is disadvantaged if the voter is confused. And I think that the reason we're here today is because Answering the question of whether or not there was an intent to confuse or impersonate or identity theft, I think is a serious— it's a serious issue.

And in an earlier committee, I actually shared with the committee that I have actually been a victim of identity theft. And this is, I know, a different situation, but I, you know, I think the context of our question— I think our questions need to be placed in the context of the situation, which is that this is a very high-stakes election, and every single voter who goes to the ballot box is going to be faced with these two names. And I understand it's the Division's job to make sure that the— that there's a— that the voter can tell the difference. I mean, to me, the whole question should be, did this individual intentionally try to confuse the voters. And I'm going to fight for that because I think that election integrity demands that we know that when people run for office, that their intention is to genuinely run for office.

I mean, I'm looking out in the audience, there are folks who've run for— who've placed their name on the ballot. And I don't think the question is, can you change your party at the last minute? Or, you know, You know, does he actually have a shot? Well, actually he does have a shot because if he wants to be on the ballot as Dan S. Sullivan, then he has a shot. Does he have a shot if he's Dan J. Sullivan?

Well, you know, Alaska has more elderly Alaskans than any other state. So I think that there might be some confusion there. And you add ranked choice voting to it. And I think there's a probability that the voters will be confused. And so, I appreciate having the opportunity to talk about this, because I think that this really gets down to election integrity, and it gets down to making sure that what your job is to make sure the voter is not confused, but then, I think as legislators, we have a job to make sure that individuals are not intentionally trying to confuse, muddle, or throw a wrench into something as significant as, as an election.

So thank you for the leeway, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Costello. And following up from what you said the last time, I'll just state it again, that as one of 11 Andrew Greys in Alaska, just because a baby is born into a Grey family and their mother and father give that child the name Andrew, and then they end up both running, they're not committing identity theft. It's, it's Literally, it's, you know, when people are born and are given names and it's the same as somebody else.

It just sometimes happens. It's not my favorite thing. I wish I were the only one, but there's 11 of us here.

I wanted— was somebody else in the queue? I lost my— oh, yes. Representative Holland, question about process. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Director Beecher, I think my recollection is during the opening comments you were making, you suggested you might be wanting to or going into a little bit of process after your opening statement. I don't know whether we're going to go there or whether we've already kind of covered what you wanted to get to, but in the area of process, I did want to raise a question about process, and it's actually one that came to me from a constituent when I had reached out and said we're going to be doing this. You know, what issues or concerns or ideas do you have? And somebody reached out to me and said, you know, this process seems that it's been a bit opaque in terms of both the criteria, the process, and the responsibility. And they suggested, should we be considering down the road that there might need to be some sort of ballot body, a group that might be— whether it's appointed or whether it's identified— that has some review process?

In the case of looking at a ballot and providing a more objective, visible set of people with the responsibility that they're the ones that look at the ballot and that we know who they are and they know their job and we know who's doing the job. I'm wondering if you could comment on the process and the people involved, and would there be some benefit to having some more clarity and transparency on a group or a body that's kind of has the final say on the ballot to be able to address some of the many questions you've had to navigate trying to come up with the final ballot as we see it now? Through the Chair, Representative Holland. So the current way that it's set up is that the director has the authority and the decision-making authority on I have the final say of how the ballot will appear. It is not a committee decision.

The facts are brought to the Director, and then I make the call on what we're going to do. If the legislature, in its wisdom, decided to make a policy call to have a committee that made these decisions, that is certainly within your your rights to make statute that requires that.

So that would be something that you could decide. As far as the current process, however, that is not how it is set up to be done. Is that answering your question? It's— could I follow up? Yeah.

Thank you for that. And I just— I was in— you know, as with my earlier question, just kind of looking for clarification.— what could we do in the future that would improve this process? And so this was kind of a process question about that review, because, you know, it appears that this was a bit more diffuse than one person with one job. It sounds like we had a Lieutenant Governor who had some involvement in conversations about this. We had the Attorney General who seemed to, at some point, step into this and have some conversations and some role in this.

It sounds like you did also. So it does sound like there was a group of people that somehow were working together together to try and figure this out. And so while I appreciate your comment that in the end this was one person's job to do, it does seem like in fact it was a process that had more people involved in it than that. And I was just curious about your thoughts on maybe a way that might be done differently that might bring more clarity to it. Through the Chair, Representative Holland, Yes, there was a lot of discussion.

This is a very big deal, and so there were a lot of discussions looking at different things that have been done in the past, et cetera. So certainly conversations occurred. As far as moving forward, though, I would leave that to all of you in your role to determine if you do not believe that the process is transparent enough, that is certainly within the purview of you as lawmakers to make that call and say we want it to be more clear to the public and so that everyone knows how the conversation went. That's certainly something that you could decide to do. Great.

Thank you. One short follow-up. Thank you. This is just a quick cleanup follow-up. Is this the only race where incumbent is listed on the ballot beside somebody's name on the ballot?

And is there any other precedent on any other ballot that we've had from the state where incumbent was listed? Through the Chair, Representative Holland, this is the only race where incumbent is used on the ballot. To my knowledge, it has not been used on the ballot in prior years. However, it is something that is used in other states and has— so there's precedent in other states of using the incumbent label. Thank you for the clarification.

Thank you, Chair. Representative McCabe. Thanks, Chair Gray. So, Director Beecher, this might be predating you a little bit. In fact, I'm sure it's predating you a a little bit, but before 2020, under the partisan primary system, we wouldn't even be here because the Republican Party would have determined whether or not the Petersburg guy is eligible to run as a Republican.

Is that a fair statement? Through the Chair, Representative McCabe, yes, the parties had a much greater role. So, so just to kind of be clear and to hammer that point home, we are here today because of Ballot Measure 2 in 2020, which gave us ranked choice voting. It gave us this open primary or the jungle primary, as well as some other things. So, it's a little bit frustrating to see the confusion that's happening even in this room and surrounding the two Dans because of something that we put in place in 2020.

Statement. Sorry, you don't have to—. I'm going to follow up on that. Oh, I'm sure you are. So, in the email, if you check, if you look at the 1,500 documents submitted by the Division of Elections, there's an email to Director Beecher from Dan J. Sullivan on June 3rd., and it states that the National Republican Senatorial Committee does not have an exclusive right to determine who may run as a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate.

Quote, "If a right did exist, we would not need primary elections at all." And that's true. In the old closed system, the party elite didn't decide who the candidate was. People voted. We had a closed primary where people voted. And if we look at the history in Alaska, we know that in 2006, We had a gubernatorial primary where the incumbent, Frank Murkowski, came in third place behind first-place Sarah Palin and second-place John Binkley.

So you could imagine, we could have held a closed Republican primary where Dan J. Sullivan defeated Dan S. Sullivan. I mean, we're going to have Republicans voting, and they would vote for these candidates. They would run. So I don't see how we could— We could, you know what, we could be exactly in this position. It's just that you would need all Republicans up here asking the questions because it would have been a closed Republican primary.

But you can definitely have folks with the same name running in a closed primary. Sure, no doubt. But we would not be here if we hadn't opened the primary, filing for the primary up. All you have to do now is say, I'm a Republican, or I'm an independent, or I think we had one guy say he was Santa Claus. Teach me, Representative McCabe.

Prior to 2020, how would I have— I registered as a Democrat in 2017 by telling the DMV I'm a Democrat. What other evidence did someone need prior to 2020 to prove they were a Republican when they go to the DMV to register? You would have to have your— you would have to have an R on your voter registration. I mean, that's a question for Director Beecher. Okay, sorry, Director Beecher.

Prior to 2020, How would I have registered as a Republican in the state of Alaska?

Chair Gray, you would just designate what your party affiliation was. And I believe— and I could be incorrect on this— I believe that the parties may have had rules about how far ahead you to their primary— excuse me— that you had to be registered as affiliated with that party. Thank you. So, Representative Costello and then Representative Carrick. Thank you.

I just want to clarify that you could select the Republican ballot in the primary just as long as you were not a registered Democrat. So I just don't want the incorrect information to be out there that you had to be registered as a Republican to select the— that ballot. So thank you. Thank you. Good clarification.

So Dan J. Sullivan definitely would have qualified for a ballot since he's never been a registered Democrat. Representative Carrick. I just wanted to clarify is legally Santa Claus, the candidate you mentioned. That is his legal name. There was no nefariousness on his part or the Division of Elections, and he is a North Pole City Council member as well.

Um, any other questions from online or anyone about this particular topic at this moment? If not, I want to shift gears.

So Director Beecher, thank you so much for answering these questions and being in the hot seat. This next section is new, and so I don't expect you to be able to comment at all if you don't want to. We could send you written questions, but I have had constituents who've been receiving a letter in the mail from the Office of the Lieutenant Governor. I'll just read the first two sentences because it kind of explains what they're getting. It says, the Alaska Division of Elections is seeking to confirm your citizenship.

You are a registered voter who indicated you were a citizen of the United States on your initial voter registration application. We have since received information from the Alaska Department of Motor Vehicles that you may not be a citizen. I have a lot of questions about that, um, and I have colleagues who have also been getting reached out to by constituents who are also receiving these letters where people are having to go prove their citizenship in order to vote. This is a matter of urgency, and so we will be offering you all of our questions in writing and hope for a timely response. Do you know about the letter?

Can you speak about this at all? Through the— Chair Gray, yes, I can speak to this. So as you know, the division's— or you may know that the division's responsibility and I would say ability, as regards to citizenship, is limited to the oath and affirmation of the voter. We do not go and investigate whether or not someone is a citizen. If they say they are and they swear to that, then that is all we are allowed to ask them for.

They do, under DMV, provide documentation of citizenship. The division, in order to— as part of our list maintenance process, we send our list quarterly over to our DMV, or if we get the list from them, and we run that against our list to check for any noncitizen who may have registered to vote. And we do this on a quarterly basis. On this last time that we ran our list by the Department of Motor Vehicles, we received a large number of individuals had been indicated as noncitizens. And because of—.

Can I interrupt really fast? Mm-hmm. The reason why I think the folks are reaching out to our office is because these are actual citizens who are receiving this notice. So I guess, to be clear, some people who— at least the only people who've contacted my office happen to be citizens. Who had been required to prove their citizenship.

So, back to you. But so you received possible non-citizens had registered to vote, and so just putting it forward, we know the letter is going to people who are citizens. Chair Gray, we sent out the letter, and the letter says that if they are— it says if you are not a U.S. citizen, then you can indicate below, and there's boxes below for those who haven't seen this letter. It says, "I am," "I am not," or they can also call, email. They don't even have to fill this out and sign it.

So, we are simply asking individuals to confirm because we received information from a verified source that these individuals were not U.S. citizens. It's important to understand there are a lot of nuances with citizenship. It's fluid because somebody could have registered to get a driver's license with DMV at a time when they were not yet naturalized. And since that time have become a naturalized citizen, registered to vote with— not in DMV, but with another entity, PFD, for example, and they may have been automatically voter registered through that process. If that happens, DMV may not have the information that shows that they are a naturalized citizen.

And we don't keep that data other than when somebody is sent to us on the PFD list where they have noted that they are a U.S. citizen, or when we get it from DMV. Those are all supposed to be ones where they have noted that they are a U.S. citizen. So we understand that some of this is probably very old data where the individuals did not contact DMV, have not updated that they are a naturalized citizen. I believe that people probably don't realize that all of these governmental entities don't necessarily talk to each other. When— an example would be when— not citizenship, but when somebody moves out of state and register to vote in another jurisdiction, people often think, well, the Division knows that because you're going to be notified by somebody, but we aren't always notified if they aren't a member of the ERIC Program.

If they are in a county somewhere, the Division doesn't always get this information, so we don't know until the voter notifies us that they have moved to a different jurisdiction. So, as an example, the same thing can happen with citizenship. Somebody may have registered to vote after they were a citizen, but the data that was contained in DMV in this case showed that they were not a naturalized citizen. It was a hit on our system. We are then obligated to say to those individuals, are you actually a citizen or not?

And so that was the genesis of this letter that was sent out. And just to clarify, all they would need to do is either by email, even call, all they have to say is, I am a citizen, and for you that's good enough? Correct. Because what we do is then we take what they said on their most recent voter registration as their oath and affirmation, they are indeed a citizen. So it's simply a confirmation by the division that we have to do because we receive the information from a verified source, and to make sure that we don't have noncitizens who are voting.

And I would say that it does go both ways. Sometimes we have heard from individuals through this process who have contacted us and said, "I'm not a U.S. citizen. I shouldn't be registered to vote. To take my name off of that. Thank you.

Um, two quick follow-ups. One is that, um, I saw other legislators nodding about hearing from constituents recently. Can you give us a ballpark figure about how many letters went out? I— my ballpark is around 3,500. Okay, that was more than I expected.

And then the last question I have before I turn it over to Chair Carrick The constituent, one of the people who notified our office, went to the My Voter Info to check their voter info, and they weren't there anymore. They'd been removed from the system. So I guess someone who gets the letter who is a citizen, like, there's already, it seems like, some actions that are being taken. Can you speak to that? I can.

Um, so Chair Gray, what the division does when, when we get this list is we then move all of those names into our inactive list, and then we send the notices. And so kind of at the same time, but we send out the notices to the individuals asking them, are you a citizen? If we don't hear from somebody, they still can vote a question ballot, but they wouldn't be on the register. And that's just a another measure when they fill out a question ballot, they also sign an oath and affirmation, so then it's more evidence that they are a citizen. They confirm when they vote a question ballot.

So it is not disenfranchising the individual from being able to vote, but it's a measure the division has to take to make sure that we only have citizens voting. This was a lot more names than we were expecting. We believe that when we did the match, that a lot of old data was picked up somehow. So we're still ferreting through that, but because we got it from a verified source, then we had to reach out and say, are you actually a citizen? Representative Carrick.

Thank you, Chair Gray. So can you just say again, you might have already said this, who's the entity that's reaching out with this list? The division. Do you mean I'm sorry, Chair Derek. To, to the division, like, who's giving you this list of names to get verification?

We work with DMV and we run our, our list against the, uh, motor vehicles list. So you're getting the list from DMV, and where— what stimulates them sending you this list? We request it. Okay. Um, and is this just a standard procedure that's always happened?

And if So why is it of seemingly sudden concern now? 3,500 Emails is a lot. I'm a little surprised by that number, too. Letters. Or letters.

Chair Carrick, we have been doing this for a while as part of the voter list maintenance. However, this was a larger list than we had anticipated, as well. So it was very concerning, but this is the process that we do we move— if we get a list of individuals from DMV, which usually is more like 200 names, then we send those individuals the notices, same letter, and ask them to confirm their citizenship. And again, they can do that by email, they can call us. We're just asking to say, are you a citizen or not?

Because we know, again, that is fluid. They could have easily become naturalized in this interim and certainly eligible to vote. And because I'm naïve on this subject, is the DMV receiving their list from— or is DMV generating this list to send to the Division of Elections, obviously from their own records, but are they being prompted to ask about certain individuals from another resource? Like, it just— I'm still struggling to understand why the list is so large this go-around, I guess. Um, and I, I'm just— I'm going to ask the question because I am concerned about it.

When I heard about this initially, I wondered if there was any connection to these folks being asked a question, are you a citizen, because of the voter roll information being shared with the federal government. So can you just alleviate my concern on that? And is, is there a federal list that the DMV is getting that is then getting to the division as you've requested it? How is this list so big this time around? Chair Carrick, um, first, in regards to any, um, DOJ, Department of Justice federal list or anything, it has nothing to do with that.— and the division is not part of the SAVE program either.

So, the information that we have received is specifically from DMV. Why the voter list— or why the list was so large this time, we're not completely sure how— if they reached back into old data, what happened. So, that's something, if you provide me with your questions, that we are looking into to figure that out. But we do know that it was much larger than previous lists. Thank you, Director Beecher.

Representative Holland. Great. Thank you, Chair Carrick— or Chair Gray. My first question was the same question that Chair Carrick just asked, so I'm just going to go straight to the follow-up because I had the same concern about connecting the dots between the data that was released and how that was maybe going to be used, and maybe this was a manifestation of what we were all concerned about was that that would happen. Um, but I look forward to the follow-up that may come from this.

But the follow-up I had was just, um, how should we think about this question of whether someone is presumed to be a valid voter or presumed to be an invalid voter? It seems like in this case, and you've referred to him, I think, as kind of a trusted source, or indication, but it raises to me this fundamental question of can we trust that the voter rolls are good, or if anybody makes some allegation that there's some concerns with it, do we immediately take the position that they need to be removed from the active roll and placed into some sort of suspect category. I'm just truly, deeply concerned about this process creating even more distrust in our voter rolls, as if there isn't enough already because of allegations. Is this the right way to handle this sort of situation, of presuming that because it came up that it must need to be pulled off and somebody's got to reprove that they're a good voter? Or should we be going from, from the other direction of assuming that they're if they're registered on the voter roll, that we need to find some evidence that they should be taken off.

You see the difference in that? And what's your thought on the presumption of they're good voter or presumption that they're not?

Chair—. Through the chair, Representative Holland, the division continually works to make sure that the voter rolls are clear and only have legitimate registered voters on them. If we get information from a verified source and DMV collects information on citizenship, then the division must act on that, and to not act means that potentially these individuals would end up on the voter register and vote a ballot and not be a citizen.

I don't see that we have the option to not move them to somewhere. It is, it is not an onerous request from the division to simply contact us and confirm, and that is what we have asked them to do. We don't require paperwork, we're not requiring documentation, nothing like that. And if they call us and say they are a registered voter because I do know we're within that 30 days prior to an election for registration purposes, then we go back to their previous filing as the date so that for sure they are registered and will be on the registrar. Follow-up with that.

Thank you.

In the process of reviewing in a prior hearing the the distribution of our voter rolls to the federal government and their request. In that hearing, we learned that some of the different sources that the federal government was using to verify citizenship had a lot of errors in it. And there were some questions about the validity that there might be in that process. It would seem from what you have just You said then that if the federal government, through whatever process they might be using our data, and given that we have reason to believe that their sources of data are not very accurate, it sounds like you— that the division would treat a list coming back from the federal government as a verified source, and we could have a substantial step then that would be created, a preponderance or a presumption that they need to be removed. And I'm just— I guess maybe it's not a question, it's just a concern that what you've laid out, given the situation we know about how our voter data is being used, it seems like we've created a situation that puts our confidence in this list at more risk than it was before, because I do trust, and I appreciate that your intent is to keep this roll accurate.

I'm not sure that this step has gotten us down that, so sorry. I was trying to get to a question. I'm not sure if I did, but if you've got a comment or response, I'd be happy to take it, but I apologize for kind of going off the rails there a little bit with my concern. Through the Chair, if I could just make sure that it's very clear that we have not heard from the DOJ regarding any list— or the list that we provided, that they identified noncitizens on that. We have not heard back from them.

So that has not transpired. But if we were, I suppose I could speculate for you, if we were to get information from them, we would take the same steps of moving them into inactive while we investigated. Again, they still have the opportunity then to vote a question ballot. And do their oath and affirmation that they are indeed a citizen. Thank you.

Before we go to Representative Vance on the phone and then Representative McCabe, I just wanted to ask a question about the 3,500 letters. So at least one constituent, the letter was dated June 16th, but they didn't receive it until 7/18. And so I'm curious if all the letters went out on the same day, or if you have any comment about the timing of the letters going out? Chair Gray, I'm not aware of that. So the letter that I brought a copy of myself is actually the template and it doesn't have the date on it.

So I am not aware of that, but I can certainly feel— add that to your questions. I will look into that. Thank you. Representative Vance.

Yes, thank you, and thank you, Director Beecher, for being here. My question is on this most recent conversation about verify, you know, regarding this list of people who could be deemed noncitizens. And I appreciate the division's due diligence in reaching out to them to have a conversation. But you mentioned that they simply have to tell you yes or no. That they are or are not a citizen, and then you'll move them back to active status.

And so I'm wondering at what point does the division refer a registration to the Attorney General to investigate whether or not they committed perjury?

Through the Chair, Representative Vance, if I'm understanding, you're wondering if someone is identified as a non-citizen and doesn't confirm that they are?

Could you clarify for me, please?

Well, if you have a list of— you've been given a list of people that are considered potentially non-citizens and therefore by law are not eligible to be registered to vote. So you're saying all they have to do is contact you and say, yes, I'm a citizen, or no, I'm not a citizen, and that's all you do. But at what point do you say, well, it says the evidence that I have indicates that they are not a citizen and then make that referral for further investigation to the Department of Law, the Attorney General's Office, to find out if they are breaking the law?

Through the Chair, Representative Vance, currently what we do is if we see that someone has voted and is listed as a noncitizen and doesn't respond back to us, then we would refer that to the Department of Law. If we have someone who is a— has been identified as a noncitizen, they're registered to vote, but they haven't voted— or I said that backwards. So, if somebody is not a citizen, got registered, but didn't vote, We would not refer that, but I don't have a good answer for you. If you could send that to me in writing, then I can provide you with a much more full answer for that.

I have one more clarification on that, and thank you, Mr. Chair. So isn't it illegal— and I don't have the law in front of me— isn't it already illegal for a noncitizen simply to register to vote?

Through the Chair, yes.

Why would the division wait until they took the next step by illegally voting before taking action to send questionable registrants to the Department of Law for investigation?

Through the Chair, Representative Vance. I'm just going to ask you to provide that in writing, and— because I want to make sure that I'm giving you a complete and accurate answer on our processes so that there's no question about what the division does in regards to the citizenship status of voters.

I would just add to that that because it is— it's a very nuanced thing on figuring out if somebody is a citizen or not and when they became a citizen, more nuanced than you would think. So we want to make sure that we are accurate in that before we would take the action of something legal. But again, I'm I'm not an attorney. I would want to make sure that I'm providing you with full and accurate information on the, the processes that the division would use for that.

Thank you, I appreciate that. And I recognize the committee is short on time, so I will, um, relinquish to the chair. Uh, thank you, Representative Vance. And you can add additional questions to the list of written questions that we'll submit to Director Beecher. Representative McCabe.

Thanks, Chair Gray. So, Director Beecher, this, uh, just for everybody that's watching, this, uh, collaboration, if you will, with the department, with DMV— I mean, frankly, this is the division's job. This is what you're supposed to be doing, right? I mean, it's nothing new. It's not like you just suddenly got a wild hare and decided to go, um, you know, exercise some new thing.

This is kind of what you do. Making sure that the voter rolls are correct, right? Through the Chair, Representative McCabe, yes, we are continually working to make sure that our voter rolls are accurate and current. So, follow-up? Thanks.

So, this isn't just some sort of idea or some sort of a, you know, thing that you have an opinion about. You actually have procedures. This is how you do it. You request the list. I think you pretty well went through the procedure.

Request the list, then you put them on this inactive, not as a means of punishment, but just as a means of sort of storing the name until you get a response back, one way or the other. They could— you could even get a response back from the question ballot. If they vote on a question ballot and that's their affirmation that they're a citizen. Is that— does that sound about right? Through the Chair, Representative McCabe, that is correct.

Thanks. I just didn't— I didn't want to leave people watching with the opinion that this was some sort of a nefarious plot from— by the division. This is actually their job. This is what they do, is make sure the voter rolls are clean and correct. Thank you, Representative McCabe.

And again, to just a comment to point out that the reason why my office was concerned is because we had citizens receiving letters saying they needed to prove their citizenship, which they'd never received before, which we're just making sure was very fair, you know, who was receiving the letter and why. Representative Mena. Thank you, Chair Gray. Uh, to the chair, to Director Beecher, uh, I definitely share the concern and the goal to make sure that our voter rolls are accurate and ensuring that we do have U.S. citizens that are voting. I, I, um, just learning about this process of how the division shares its information with the DMV, I just worry about just referring to that DMV data.

And as you noted, that citizenship and naturalization is a very fluid process. And I was looking back in the statute, uh, AS 1865.310 is the authority for the DMV to be able to provide an identification card or a driver's license that is based on the authority for an Alaskan to stay in the U.S. for less than 8 years or if the authorized stay is indefinite. And so all that is to say, the DMV's job is not necessarily to track who is all U.S. citizens, just who is authorized to stay. So my question is, does the Division of Elections refer to other data besides the DMV, noting that some of that, their data is outdated and they don't track everybody who's a citizen? Through the Chair, Representative Mena, no, we don't.

We, partly because we are under the National Voter Registration Act, which does not allow the division to do really an investigation or to require documentation regarding citizenship. We go by the oath and affirmation. So when we get information like this, that's why it seems probably very simple on its face that all they have to do is contact us. That's all they have to do is let us know. And then we go by their oath and affirmation on the last registration that we have.

Okay. Thank you.

Seeing no further questions, I'll just ask because we didn't hear from Representative St. Clair or Representative Stoyer or Representative Underwood. So since we're finishing up, is there— do you have any final comment or question?

Oh, Representative Story. Uh, thank you. Uh, thanks for the good questions today, and thank you, Ms. Beecher, for being here. I just think one thing that is just so important to me is, um, you know, the Supreme Court was very clear that, uh, in, uh, the interpretation of the division that that was not legal, um, to use to try and interpret someone's intent in voting. And so I just think it's really, really important that we have assurances that there's some way the division can assure the people who are elected that we will be following the laws and that there's no favoritism.

It's just so important that appointed officials elected officials, all of us, can give, what would I say, confidence in our election system. And so my question always is going to be, you know, the assurance that the division will be following the laws that are clear.

Thank you, Representative Story. Since you mentioned the case, Representative Story, I do have a question for Representative Peter, I, again, very grateful for all of the documents provided. However, the case was litigated by an outside law firm. And in the privilege log that the Division provided to the committees, there's no mention of attorney-client communications with that outside law firm. So I was curious if that means the Division was not participating in the litigation or if those communications were inadvertently left out of what we received.

Chair Gray, I'm not sure what the answer to that is. I can tell you that we had conversations. So does that answer your question? I'm not sure. I think I just expected there to be some email or some sort of physical correspondence.

I don't see the outside law firm anywhere in the 1,500 documents. And so, again, it's a lot of documents. There might be something in there that we missed. But I think we reviewed the documents fairly carefully and didn't see the outside law firm—correspondence with the outside law firm there. So we were just curious.

Chair Gray, I can tell you that there were conversations.

With the outside counsel. Okay, thank you. Director Beecher, thank you so much for being here today. I know this is— you're in the hot seat and you're answering a lot of difficult questions, and I sincerely appreciate it. You did it all by yourself, and so thank you for being here.

We appreciate it. I am going to take the privilege of the chair at the previous committee, so Director Beecher, you, you can leave the hot seat if you choose. At the previous committee, we had invited a number of attorneys to appear before us. There was one who was unable to make it. He is here in person.

If he would like to make his statement, I would call Scott Kendall forward. You can place yourself on the record and offer the testimony that you were not able to offer last month.

Yeah, thank you, Chairs Gray and Carrick. Scott Kendall, attorney here in Anchorage. Relevant here, I think, is I actually am an attorney who has— maybe the only attorney I know of that successfully prosecuted and defended candidate eligibility complaints. And some of the questions that have come up with relation to could these occurrences occur under our old election system prior to 2020. I know Representative McCabe at the prior hearing raised some good questions about that, so I just wanted to offer that to the committee.

I'll try to be brief, although I want to cover both subjects.

First of all, one really quick thing is I have actually, again, both prosecuted and defended candidate eligibility complaints. And I do know the division's process pretty well prior to Director Beecher's time. When a complaint is filed, the division makes a preliminary determination, and they do actually, multiple times in my experience, do ask for the challenged candidate to respond under oath. For what it's worth, those candidates in my experience would submit an affidavit. I had— I personally represented someone who was responding to a candidate eligibility complaint that was post-election and actually had to go through a bench trial.

She had to testify, her husband had to testify. So that part of it, at least I can personally tell you, is not unusual.

I also kind of wanted to touch on, I guess, what has been perceived as the unusualness of the Division's actions here. I will note this isn't Whatever you think of the candidates involved, whatever party you're a part of, this is not an unprecedented issue. Our closest neighbor, Washington State, in fact has a specific law, RCW 29A-84-270, that prohibits a candidate running in bad faith. They actually have a statute, and in 2024, they had, in addition to Democratic candidate Bob Ferguson, they had two additional what they would convey as fake Bob Ferguson's run, and under threat of prosecution, those two Bob Fergusons withdrew. So the issue here isn't that this is sort of a wholly unprecedented action by the Division of Elections, not at all.

Really, this turned on the fact, as the Supreme Court correctly found, we just don't have a statute. We don't have a statute that says anything about motive or anything like that, and so I would encourage the committee to take a look at that statute. See if they have interest in dealing with this, because I will guarantee, you know, especially for federal office, anyone can run for anything. They could find 3 or 4 Mary Peltolas, they could find another 20 Dan Sullivans. This is something that I think appropriately the legislature should deal with to prevent a situation like this.

So, again, going back to what the Supreme Court found, what they found was the statute didn't give them a basis to withdraw him from the ballot. Two different issues: can he be on the ballot, and then how can he be on the ballot? So the Supreme Court, I think, correctly found, you know, beyond the basic qualifications, which he has, you can't remove him from the ballot.

However, the Lieutenant Governor does have discretion to design the ballot. The Supreme Court noted that discretion at 6 AAC 25.212, specifically subsection , which requires the Division to design ballots so that candidates' names do not appear, and I quote, "in a manner confusing or misleading to voters or that compromises the fairness and integrity of the ballot." It's easy, as I sit here, and I'm an experienced election attorney, that no distinguishment beyond middle initial would not meet this standard. That would be an absurd standard to assume. I have some experience with this. When I worked for Senator Murkowski's write-in campaign, we had a whole slew of people actually file as write-in candidates with the first name Lisa, the last initial M, so that anyone who wrote Lisa M. on the ballot would not count.

So this is— this is not an unprecedented tactic of this type. Marking the senator as incumbent and removing the party affiliation seem to— seem like they are directed at reducing confusion.

And I will further note, I've participated in over a dozen recounts, 2 of which were statewide. I have literally looked at tens of thousands of challenged ballots, and I will tell you with a certainty that the people who confusion would hit the hardest would be the elderly, they would be special needs ballots, they would be people voting from overseas in whatever conditions they have to vote, It would be people for whom English is a second language, and that would be a tragedy. And again, this isn't a dispute of Senator Sullivan versus Representative Peltola, or even Senator Sullivan versus Petersburg Sullivan. This is the voter versus the ballot, and I think the voter's intent should be the Division's north star when they design the ballot. And my opinion, as someone who has looked at these issues a lot, their changes seem to serve that.

Truly, Mr. Sullivan from Petersburg said, "It is not my intent to confuse voters." And so when these changes were made to the ballot, I note he has not challenged them, nor do I think it would be appropriate to challenge them unless voter confusion is indeed his end. Certainly he's gained a lot of notoriety by having the same name. He's got issues he can raise. He's got every right to raise them. I hope he does use his First Amendment speech rights.

But certainly, I think everyone on this committee should admit and understand that if the ballot is designed with a lack of clarity, there will be wasted votes, and every single one of those votes should be a tragedy. And for what it's worth, I actually personally know both Senator Sullivan and Representative Peltola, and they are good people, and I do not believe they would want any voter's vote to be wasted, even if it were a vote for their opponent.

And again, so from there, I will— unless there's questions about that subject, I'll pivot to our current election system versus the prior election system in this particular unprecedented, at least in Alaska, situation.

The good news is, to the extent Daniel J. Sullivan's candidacy confused voters, our system is well designed to deal with that. Our current system, meaning the system enacted in 2020, because that confusion would have manifested under the old system in one of two ways. Way number one is someone just gets onto the primary ballot, and they absolutely, under the old system, if they register as a Republican, they would have appeared on the primary ballot as, you know, at best, Dan J. Sullivan, Republican, versus Dan S. Sullivan, Republican, and there is a non-zero chance that could cause a problem for the incumbent, and I think that would have been unfair. The other way this could have manifested is, which would put us in the situation we are likely in now, which is Daniel Sullivan would have filed as a petition candidate, they would have gone directly to the general election ballot, they would have appeared much like they appear now with no party affiliation, but they would be on the ballot as Dan Sullivan, and the problem there is there would be no rank choice voting. So, a confused voter couldn't say, "Well, I don't know which is which, but I'll rank Dan number 1 and Dan number 2, and one of them is going to count." Under our current system, they have that option.

And I will briefly discuss Alaska's history and the reason that, like, that's not a far-fetched situation. In fact, inspired by, I think, Governor Knowles' 2 terms as a plurality-elected governor, the Alaska Republican Party actually put a ballot measure forth in 2002 to enact ranked-choice voting. They put it forward, they endorsed it, so did the Libertarian Party, many other prominent Alaskans. It failed at the ballot box, but they saw the same problem, which is when similarly affiliated people, you know, in this instance, by virtue of confusion, spoilers generally occur because of people with close political views, views splitting a vote, and then electing someone by plurality. Kind of this situation occurred in 2008 in a couple of different ways with the defeat of U.S.

Senator Ted Stevens. The first issue we had was, we had the Eric Haffner problem. We had an out-of-state millionaire, a Democrat from Florida, who changed his affiliation to Republican, and used hundreds of thousands of dollars to you know, viciously attack Senator Stevens as corrupt throughout the primary election. Came in third place, but, you know, I'm certain that he was allowed to use our primary election as a platform to attack the good senator. Then in the general election, Senator Stevens was defeated by Mark Begich by 3,900 votes.

Also on the ballot were Bob Byrd, an AIP candidate, and Mr. Haas, the Libertarian candidate, both running to the right politically of Senator Stevens, and they combined for 16,000 votes. So if 25% of the voters who had ranked them number 1 had ranked Senator Stevens number 2, he would have won. So we've seen these issues. But the— again, the good news here is, in this situation, we have multiple layers of protection. First of all, I think the Division of Elections acted appropriately.

They've created a ballot that distinguishes the two Dans Sullivan. Second, assuming that Petersburg Dan Sullivan does make the top four, and I think it's probably a fair assumption he does, by confusion if nothing else, well, any voter who is confused can rank both of them and be assured that their vote is going to count for the senator. And I'll just give a brief takeaway.

Just— and this is kind of taking off my lawyer hat, and this is speaking as someone who has worked on many, many campaigns, including statewide campaigns.

At this point, I think the press has turned Mr. Petersburg Sullivan into something of a folk hero, and quite honestly, I would be surprised if you don't get a goodly number of people who do not like Senator Sullivan voting for him, and if on balance, it may actually negatively impact Representative Peltola than Senator Sullivan himself. But the good news is, is I think our system is well equipped to make sure that whatever the will of the voters is if, you know, 50% plus 1 want Senator Sullivan, the system is well equipped to absorb the confusion and transfer those votes to Senator Sullivan, especially with the Division of Elections' distinguishment of the two candidates on the ballot. Unless there's questions, that's what I've got.

Thank you, Mr. Kendall. Thanks for being here. Thanks.

Seeing no further questions, Chair Carrick.

Yeah, thank you, Chair Gray. I want to also thank Mr. Kendall for just testifying. I know we weren't able to have you at the last hearing. I appreciate you coming to this hearing. And I also, I know she has left now, but I want to thank Director Beecher on the record for appearing today and for producing the documents requested, which are lengthy and substantive.

Substantive in nature. And, um, as committee members have more time and audience members to look at those, I would highly encourage that too. Um, you know, I, I really appreciated Mr. Kendall's testimony there at the end because I do think that there's a lot of diverse perspectives happening at the same time here. But I think without statutory clarity on the Division of Elections role, the Alaska Supreme Court really did make make a profoundly correct decision in this case. And ultimately, when I listen to Director Beecher, I just want to note that it seems to me, at least, and to many of the voters I've spoken with, that there are several factors important for other candidates and for voters to decide, but that should not matter substantively for the Division of Elections.

The office that a person is seeking the amount of money that's involved in a race, the number of years or prestige that an incumbent candidate or another candidate may hold, and a way— the way that a person chooses to present their campaign. For example, using blue and gold as their colors, which so many candidates do, having a website which displays their picture in a certain location, those kinds of factors. The factors that seem statutorily that should matter to the Division of Elections our basic eligibility of citizenship, residency, and age, and the ballot's readability with no to minimal intervention as possible. I think that the Division of Elections, having Dan J. Sullivan back on the ballot in this particular situation, has responded appropriately to the Supreme Court decision, but I'm still concerned that the amount of information that voters would like to see and that candidates would like to have on their ballot creates a precedence that is not necessarily in the greatest interest of transparency. Um, and I'm just worried about precedent setting for the potential for DOE to, again, as I said at the previous hearing, be making subjective instead of objective decisions about Alaska's elections and candidates.

And we know that those choices have such incredibly major consequences. Consequences. We are talking in this hearing about a United States Senate race. I don't think that's lost on anyone here. And I— it does concern me that, you know, we could have a precedent.

So, I think, at the very minimum, some kind of statutory clarity is needed to better define the Division of Elections' role in that eligibility determination process, beyond those basic requirements. And I just, again, I want to express that concern, but I mostly just want to thank Director Beecher for appearing today and for the documents, because I think it is extremely illuminating to have that discussion. Thank you, Chair Carrick, and thanks to everyone for being here and for the folks online. If you have additional questions, what we will do is my staff, Dylan Hitchcock Lopez, will send out an email with all the questions that we currently currently have about verifying citizenship in Alaska in order to vote. If you want to add questions, you can reply to that email.

I know Representative Vance has questions that we can add those to the list that goes to the Division of Elections. That concludes today's business before the committee. The time is now 3:10 PM, and this hearing of the House Judiciary Committee is adjourned.