Alaska Legislature: MISC-20260622-1300

This meeting of the House Judiciary Committee will now come to order. The time is now 1:05 PM on Monday, June 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 Aishide, Representative Underwood, and online we have Representative Genevieve Mena and myself, Representative Gray, Chair. Let the record reflect that we have a quorum to conduct business.

I will now turn the gavel over to Chair Carrick to take roll for State Affairs.

Thank you, Chair Gray. Can you all hear us okay in the Anchorage LIO? Yes. Excellent. Um, just very quickly, uh, House State Affairs is also coming to order, and we have members present in person: Representative St. Clair and Representative McCabe.

We also have online Representative Himschoot, Representative Story, and myself, Chair Carrick. I also see Representative Holland in the room. If I missed anyone, um, I turn the gavel back over to Chair Gray to chair this hearing today and to announce any other legislators present. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Carrick.

Let the record reflect that we have a quorum of both committees to conduct business. I would like to recognize the staff supporting this meeting. Sophia Tenney from House Records, Cassie Enter and Tristan Williams from the Anchorage LIO, and my committee aide, Dylan Hitchcock Lopez. If you need anything, please do not hesitate to notify my committee aide. Today, the House Judiciary and State Affairs Committee are meeting to examine a decision that has raised serious questions about the role of the Alaska Division of Elections plays in vetting candidates who will appear on our ballots and the consistency with which election laws are applied to those candidates.

I want to be clear at the outset about what this hearing is and what it is not. This hearing is not about whether Dan J. Sullivan is a good candidate or a bad candidate. It is not about whether anyone supports his candidacy. It is not about whether anyone believes his motives are pure or not, and it is not about who should win Alaska's 2026 United States Senate election. This hearing is about a much narrower and in many ways much more important question.

What authority does the Division of Elections have to remove a candidate from the ballot? And has that authority been exercised consistently? Those questions matter because public confidence in elections depends on more than accurate vote counting. It depends on the public's confidence that the rules are applied equally to everyone. For years, the Division of Elections has taken the position that its role is limited.

When disputes arose regarding candidate qualifications, residency, or eligibility, the division generally argued that it was not an investigative body and that disputed questions should be resolved through the courts and established legal processes rather than by election administrators themselves. In 2022, questions were raised regarding the eligibility of then-candidate Jenny Armstrong. The division publicly stated that it did not plan to investigate Armstrong's residency and maintained that position even as legal challenges proceeded through the courts. Ultimately, the Alaska Supreme Court upheld Armstrong's eligibility to serve in the legislature. Also in 2022, a voter challenged the candidacy of incumbent David Eastman for the Alaska House of Representatives, arguing that Eastman's membership in the Oath Keepers group disqualified him from holding office under the disloyalty provision of the Alaska Constitution.

The Division rejected the complaint and allowed Representative Eastman to remain on the ballot. In the ensuing litigation, the Division consistently maintained that Alaska law and regulation, quote, carve out a narrow role for the Division to evaluate candidates' eligibility to be on the ballot, primarily concerned with a candidate meet the requirements for citizenship, age, and residency. Moreover, said the Division at the time, neither the statute nor the regulation contemplates an open-ended evidentiary inquiry or fact-finding by the Division. The Division was adamant that, quote, an administrative complaint to the Division is not the proper forum for a freewheeling investigation into a candidate's political associations, end quote. In 2024, the Alaska Democratic Party challenged the candidacy of Eric Hafner, a federal prisoner serving a lengthy sentence in New York.

Questions were raised about whether he could satisfy Alaska residency requirements by the time he would take office. Yet the Division maintained that it lacked the authority to independently question a candidate's stated intent regarding future residency and argued against removing him from the ballot. The Division wrote in its briefing to the court that, quote, In his declaration of candidacy, Mr. Haffner certified to the Division that he would meet the residency requirement. However unlikely that may be in his case, the Division must treat him the same way it would treat any other qualified candidate who affirms an intention to meet the residency requirement by Election Day. End quote.

Of course, he didn't meet the residency requirements by that day. He's serving a long sentence in court, in federal, in prison in New York. Reasonable people can disagree about the merits of those cases, but what is difficult to dispute is that the Division's posture was one of restraint. The Division did not present itself as the ultimate fact-finder. The Division did not claim broad authority to determine the sincerity of a candidate's intentions.

The Division did not remove any of those candidates from the ballot. Based on its own assessment of their motives. That history brings us— brings this matter before us today. Earlier this month, the Division of Elections removed Dan J. Sullivan from the 2026 U.S. Senate ballot after concluding that his filing was not a, quote, "good faith," end quote, candidacy and was intended to confuse or mislead voters. Whether that conclusion is correct is not the primary question before this committee.

The question before this committee is how the division arrived at that conclusion and where it found the authority to make it. Because for the first time in recent memory, the division appears to have moved beyond evaluating objective qualifications and into the realm of evaluating intent. It did not merely ask whether a candidate met the constitutional requirements for office. It asked whether the candidate's motives were genuine. That is a significant step, and it raises legitimate questions.

If the Division lacked the authority to investigate one candidate's good faith in claiming residency, what gives it authority to investigate another candidate's motives for filing? If the Division could not independently determine a candidate's future intent to reside in Alaska in 2024, how can it independently determine a candidate's subjective intent to seek office in 2026? If disputed questions belonged in court 2 years ago, why do they belong within the division today? These are not partisan questions. I would ask the same questions if the candidate being removed were a Democrat, an independent, or a member of any other party.

Because the issue before us is larger than any individual candidate. The issue is whether Alaska has a consistent standard. The issue is whether election administrators are applying the same rules in every case. The issue is whether Alaskans can have confidence that ballot access decisions are being made according to clear legal principles rather than changing interpretations. One more quote from Alaska Division of Elections' motion to dismiss Kawaki v. Eastman in 2022, quote, requiring the division to perform a politically complicated investigation could threaten the public's perception of its neutrality, end quote.

From my personal perspective and many Alaskans across the political spectrum, The actions of our Division of Elections this June destroy their appearance of neutrality. Recently, Legislative Counsel Andrew Dunmire issued a memorandum concluding that the division likely lacked legal authority to remove Mr. Sullivan from the ballot because the United States Constitution sets forth the qualifications for serving in the U.S. Senate, and a requirement that a candidate be filed in good faith is not among them. Whether one agrees with that legal conclusion or not, it highlights precisely why this hearing is necessary. When a government agency exercises a power it has rarely, or perhaps never, exercised before, the public deserves an explanation. When a government agency departs from positions it has taken in previous cases, the public deserves an explanation.

And when a government agency removes a candidate from the ballot, the public deserves a very clear explanation. That is the purpose of today's hearing. Our goal is not to re-litigate elections. Our goal is not to attack public servants. Our goal is to understand the legal basis for this decision, examine whether it is consistent with past practice, and ensure that Alaskans' elections laws are administered fairly, transparently, and consistently.

Today's hearing is going to be the first of a two-part hearing. The Division of Elections and the Lieutenant Governor's Office asked for an extension of time to prepare documents in response to subpoenas from the House State Affairs Committee. The decision to hold our hearing today has been called by Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom, quote, "unreasonable and unnecessary," end quote. That's from her letter last night available on BASIS. She states, quote, that due to the unreasonable timeframe provided and the lack of urgency, we may have no choice but to seek to quash the subpoena in court, end quote.

I would like to respond directly to Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom about our timeframe. In its final determination letter issued June 15th, 2026, the Division of Elections set out its own timeline with respect to the investigation of Daniel J. Sullivan. On June 10th, the division advised Mr. Sullivan that it had received 2 complaints and offered him an opportunity to respond by 5 PM on June 11th, the very next day. When he didn't respond, they removed him from the ballot 4 days later. We noticed today's hearing on Tuesday, June 16th, one day after he was removed from the ballot and a full 6 days before this meeting happening right now.

Ballots for the upcoming August primary are scheduled to be printed on June 28th. That's the end of this week. So resolving this issue is actually of the utmost importance and urgency. That said, in a spirit of great generosity, Chair Carrick has agreed to excuse Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom and Director Beecher from appearing today on the condition that they produce requested documents by July 20th and appear before this joint committee on July 22nd, 2026. The Lieutenant Governor has agreed to those conditions, and for that we are very grateful.

I'd like to state for the record that the following individuals were invited to participate at today's hearing, but we did not hear back: former Lieutenant Governor Meade Treadwell, former Division of Elections Director Gail Funumiai, former Division of Elections Director Josie Benke, Chair of the Alaska Republican Party Carmela Warfield, Chair of Alaska Libertarian Party Nicholas Conrad. The following people were invited but declined to participate: former Lieutenant Governor Fran Ulmer. And the following people declined to participate but have submitted written testimony which has been uploaded to BASIS: former Lieutenant Governor Lauren Lehman and Chair of the Alaska Democratic Party Eric Croft. So who are we hearing from today? We will be hearing from legal experts to get an overview of the division's legal authority and its past practices when determining a candidate's eligibility for office.

At the next hearing, the division will respond to specific questions from this committee. I encourage all the members to use today as an opportunity to get their questions on the record so that the division can be prepared to provide full and complete responses next month. At this moment, I would just like to acknowledge other legislators who are present in the audience. We are joined by Senator Alvie Gray Jackson, Representative Elise Galvin, and Representative Donna Mears. Thanks for being here today.

Our next testifier is Andrew— sorry, our first invited testifier is Thomas Amodio from the law firm of Reeves Amodio. Mr. Amodio has substantive— substantial experience with administrative agencies and administrative appeals. He practices regularly before the Alaska Public Offices Commission, APOC, representing candidates, campaigns, and groups, and regularly advises clients on APOC matters such as lobbying and campaign finance issues. Mr. Amodio has also handled numerous cases of public interest litigation involving elections, voter initiatives, referendums, recalls, and other election-related disputes. Mr. Amodio represented the appellants the Alaska Democratic Party and Anita Thorn before the Alaska Supreme Court in the case challenging Eric Hafner's appearance on the ballot in 2024 general election for the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Amodio, thank you for joining us by phone today. Would you please take yourself off mute, state your name for the record, and begin your testimony?

I'm— can you hear me, Chairman? Yes, sir, we can hear you. Okay, good. I wasn't on mute, but I was told I was unmuted. Yes, my name is Thomas Amodio.

That's spelled A-M-O-D-I-O. And the law firm I'm with is Reed Amodio, LLC. And I don't represent the Division of Elections, of course. I never have. They've always, I've always been on the other side of various matters.

You've summarized it pretty accurately, so I don't, you know, won't go into specifics there, but I guess I would seek your, well, I don't want to get into too much, but tell me what you'd like me to address. Thank you, Mr. Amodio. Can you begin by saying what qualifies a candidate to appear on a ballot? In the state of Alaska for U.S. Senate or U.S. House of Representatives?

Well, that is not really set out anywhere in our laws. It's just that's the federal requirements and we— that was addressed in the Halfma case. Where he's never been to Alaska and all he has to do is show up one day before he's elected and he's a qualified candidate under federal law. That's my understanding. And even though he's imprisoned back, I thought it was New Jersey, but New York, makes no difference.

He's running again this year, by the way, I understand. I read it in the newspaper, I should say. I don't know that for a fact. Apparently both he and his mother, who is not incarcerated, I do not believe, are running— both of whom are New Jersey residents, I believe, are both running again. And, yes, the Division has always taken the position it is not their job, it is not their duty— in cases I have been involved in, let me, let me, you know, put that caveat in there.

To determine. The declaration of candidacy is essentially sacrosanct. If you say, "I can be— meet those qualifications," and obviously you are the right, you know, got to be significant to be applicable age. So let me read you from the Constitution real quick. These are the qualifications to be a state representative or a state senator in Alaska set forth very clearly.

A member of the legislature shall be a qualified voter who has been a resident of Alaska for at least 3 years and of the district from which elected for at least 1 year immediately preceding his or her filing for office. A senator shall be at least 25 years of age and a representative at least 21 years. And then there are some disqualifications having to do with holding certain offices under profit, stuff like that, on a different section. But none of those would be applicable here and are generally not applicable. That's it.

That's what you need to be for the Alaska Legislature. My understanding with the federal is that if you meet the age requirement under federal law, you don't have to be a resident of Alaska for a day. You know what I mean? It's not— it's the way the federal law is worded. It's inhabitant, not resident.

So, all you have to do is be an inhabitant of Alaska when you are actually elected. So, you could literally come up here on Election Day That's my understanding. And that's the position that the Division of Elections took in the case that you were talking about. And the Supreme Court agreed in the sense that the Supreme Court said, yeah, this is not for the Division of Elections to investigate and decide. They absolutely can and must rely on the declaration of candidacy filed by a candidate, and that's it, you know.

So I don't— I think without speaking any specific candidate on the current ballot, I— the— in my view, the Division's decision to exclude the second Dan Sullivan because his name is inconsistent with what the division has always done before and the positions it's taken in terms of, you know, it's up to the voters to decide, not, not the division. Thank you. One more question before we go to Representative McCabe. I'd like to state for the record that we were joined by Representative Dan Sadler. Thank you for being here, sir.

Based on your experience, Mr. Amodio, what, if any, role does the Division have in investigating a candidate's motives for running for office?

None that I'm aware of. There's nothing that says your motives have to be clean and, you know, above board. You could be running for the— because you want a paycheck. You could be running because you disagree on an issue with others. I mean, it's— there's so many reasons.

If you get to go down that road, it's just an unending— and in my view, it's just, yeah, it's— I've not seen— I've not seen that before in my 30-plus, 35 years of practice before APOC, the Division of Elections. And let me just say real quickly, I admire the Division of Elections. I've seen them recounts. They are hardworking. They're terrific.

They do a— I really trust them. I've told candidates before, they said, oh, I'm, I'm only 12 votes behind. Can I challenge it? You forget it. There's no— you know, depending on how much the pool is, they are there.

They've got their playbook. They stick to it in terms of counting votes. And, you know, they follow the law. It's— they do a terrific, commendable job. So I have to say this.

This decision by the division has surprised me somewhat, but, you know, I'm, like I say, I don't represent the division, so it's, I'm not involved with them. But, um, yeah, so in my experience, that's, uh, um, uh, they, they haven't inquired into, I've never seen an inquiry into that area before, what the motives of the candidate are for running. Thank you, Mr. Amodio. For the record, I would like to state that Representative Sarah Vance has been excused from today's hearing due to unforeseen travel delays. Representative McCabe.

Thank you, Chair Gray. So, Mr. Amodio, good to hear from you. I have a couple, 2 or 3 questions, if that's all right, Chair Gray. Okay. So first off, I'm wondering if you dispute the factual findings made by the division, or do you only dispute the division's authority to act on those findings?

I have not seen the factual findings, but I— so I have no basis for disputing it. As I say, I'm not, Senator, I'm responding generally to the division's, you know, authority and decision. I'm not I'm not challenging what they found or, you know, their conclusions. Follow-up? Yeah, thanks, sir.

I appreciate it. So, second question: if a candidate intentionally adopts another candidate's name, party affiliation, and branding to confuse voters, should the state have any ability to intervene, would you think, speaking as an attorney?

I, again, that's not— so I don't know that. I mean, I would think there are perhaps other ways using middle names or something. I understand that Senator Sullivan, in fact, is registered under— with using his full middle name as well as his first name. But that's something I don't— yeah, I don't pretend to I want to make it clear, too, Senator, that this has not come up, this specific issue, in the many, many cases I've had. And I've done 3 cases in 25 years where the candidates were separated by a single vote in the primary.

And I've been involved in those 3 reported decisions. But this is— this is very unusual where the The one with Hafner a couple years ago, and also with Jeannie Armstrong, they were quite unusual cases. And I was not involved in the Armstrong, but I was involved with the Hafner. And, you know, I just want to make that clear that I, this is an unusual issue. So I do not know, you know, what the, what could be done.

Thanks. One more follow-up, if you don't mind. So, and I guess you're pretty experienced with this, as Chair Gray mentioned earlier. So what I'm interested to know is, all of these cases that we are talking about right now have all happened after Ballot Measure 2 in 2020 was passed. So are you aware of any cases that passed before, um, the prior system, you know, Ballot Measure 2 in 2020, which is known as the ranked choice voting, but which also included the open primaries.

So are you aware of any cases that happened like, like this before then? Well, I, I don't know. And again, this is, this is an unusual case, um, uh, because of the, uh, uh, the grounds. I mean, I've certainly been involved in, in cases. I was involved in the Lisa Murkowski when she ran, you know, right in quite a few years.

That was before the ranked choice voting, the ballot measure speaking of. And, but, you know, and then, like I say, I've been involved in cases where the candidates were one vote apart, but that had to do with voting, whether to count votes and kind of vote whether a vote was properly cast, et cetera. That did not involve the— so the answer to your question is no, I'm not aware. I was not involved in any involving candidates from before that time and whether the candidate was qualified to appear on the ballot. Thank you, sir.

One more, if you wouldn't give me a little attitude. Thanks. So, and this is more of a statement, but Ballot Measure 2 stripped political parties of any control over who runs under their banner. A candidate can self-assign a major party label with no party voting on a single shared ballot. The pre-Ballot Measure 2 party primary was itself an anti-impersonation safeguard.

The system is flawed and this candidacy is illegitimate, illegitimate, are not in tension once you see that Ballot Measure 2 removed a structural protection that existed precisely to prevent this. So prior to us putting ranked choice voting in Ballot Measure 2, in place in 2020, this never would have happened. This particular instance never would have happened. The party would have separated them out the way the party did before it, with the primary, with the vetting, with the political vetting, the party vetting. Open primaries and Ballot Measure 2 is what allowed all three of these cases, frankly, to happen since 2020.

So I just want to make sure that we're clear on the record that we wouldn't be here spending this time and spending this effort and spending this political capital of a subpoena if it wasn't for Ballot Measure 2. Thank you. Thank you, Representative McCabe. Representative Holland, and then we'll go to Representative Hemmschulte. Great.

Thank you, Chair Gray. Mr. Amodio, I wanted to, I think, begin by going back to the broad question about qualifications, but I want to put it into the context of the discussion we've just been having. Is there anything in the federal requirements for a candidate or a senator or representative related to party affiliation? Is that a criteria that exists, or is that an artifact of the administration of the election process administered by the state? I think the answer is primarily the latter.

It's not a requirement. But I, you know, I am not as familiar, having only been involved in a couple cases involving federal candidates. Like I say, under Haffner, I think he might have been a registered Democrat, but I mean, that was, that was not the issue. The issue was the fact that he was not in Alaska, had never been, and could not be prior to Election Day if he had been elected. So he wouldn't have met the term, and that was the Division of Elections.

And it was upheld by the courts. I certainly will concede that. Said, yeah, that's under federal rules. That's fine. So I don't really know for sure, but I would say it was the second of your comments, not the first.

Any follow-up? Thank you for that. And just to follow up, but I understand if maybe you don't want to go too far into this, but, you know, I recognize that in the correspondence we've had dated June 10th from Holmes Weddell and Barkott, there's an assertion that party affiliation is required to be disclosed as a part of the candidacy. Process, and yet in the correspondence we have from Mr. Sullivan on June 3rd, he explains that because of the party status, he was initially identified as unaffiliated, but the form itself provided a process by which he could declare a party affiliation. And I'm just trying to clarify if there's anything in that process that somehow is specifically related to qualifications for a candidate, or again, if this is simply a codified process and some issues related to party affiliation that aren't necessarily related to the actual qualifications of the office he's seeking.

Again, yes, they are not related to qualifications. It's strictly— It's how the candidate's name— what's— how you fill out your declaration. It's my understanding is what— how your name will appear on the ballot, what party affiliation, et cetera. And it's not part of our state constitutional or statutory law on qualifications for candidacy. Correct?

Great. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Holland. Representative Hemmschulte. Thank you, Chair Gray.

Through the Chair, my question is if— and it may not be appropriate to this hearing, but I'm just going to ask it anyway— if we were going to clarify names on the ballot and what name is allowed and what name isn't allowed, or some other parameter Is that done through statute or is that done through regulation? So I'm, I guess I'm looking forward, and in this situation I think there's a lot still to, to be determined and to play out through this hearing or somewhere else or whatever. But whose role is it? You know, you have the Constitution, and then is there a role for the legislature to say that if someone changed their name to another candidate's name a month ago, that's not valid, but if they did it a year ago, it would be valid. So I guess my question is, is there a role for the legislature in, in defining who has access to the ballot?

Mr. Amodio. Oh, that's, yeah, that's definitely above my pay grade. I don't know the answer to that. I mean, I would assume because— so the Constitution sets forth the qualifications. And as long as— pardon me.

As long as the statutes do not impose additional qualifications, but merely explain, or as you point out, put in some guardrails maybe, I assume there'd be a role for the legislature. I mean, they're the ones who adopt the statutes that we then abide by, you know, Division of Elections, the public, whoever, the voters. But specifically, I think that would be a question for legislative counsel. To your specific question, is that possible to do legislatively, or, you know, does that somehow overlap with what the Constitution and the statutes already provide. The statutes, of course, can be amended, but the Constitution is a whole different thing.

I mean, it sets forth pretty clearly, but it does not address it. It does give authority to the Division and also, I believe, to the legislature to, you know, I mean, elections have to be run in a fair and impartial manner, et cetera., and all that's, like I say, I really have a lot of admiration for everyone that I've worked with, that I've seen working at the Division in various capacities, recounts, legal, even when we've appeared in court on opposite sides of an issue, they've been prepared and, you know, knowledgeable and you know, well-versed in the law. I've won some and I've lost some. So, you know, I mean, that's just the way it is. But, Mike, to get back to your question, yes, I believe there's a role for the legislature, but that would be specifically what you asked might be better— the question might be better addressed to the legislative counsel.

Okay. Thank you. We'll go next to Representative Costello, and then we'll go to Representative Story, and then Representative Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Amadio, thank you for being here today. We're looking at the situation, and you're here to share with us the Division of Elections' role in a vote, in a candidate's qualification. Elections, and we're looking at the Constitution and the state law, and I have no issue with that. I think my point and my question has to do with the role of the Division of Elections in whether or not they can investigate the candidate as they appear on the ballot. And I'm here to say they actually do.

Investigate. And the reason I know they do is because they called me. So, um, in the case of a candidate who filed to run for office as Jay McDonald, the division called me and they said, do you know Forrest McDonald? And I said, no, I, I do not know a Forrest McDonald. Well, apparently, uh, Forrest J. McDonald is the legal name of the candidate, and they do not go by Forrest.

They go by Jay. And so the division was investigating the name of the candidate as it was appearing on the ballot. Now, we all know, and maybe the public knows or not, but you can actually fill out your candidacy form and you can put any name you want. You have that right as a candidate. So in this case, the person wrote down Jay McDonald, and the Division of Elections called around and investigated that with people to make sure that— and this is the important part— that he was not appearing in a manner that was confusing or misleading to voters.

Voters know that person as Jay McDonald. They do not know him by another name. And so the division was investigating investigating. And I think that the Division has done that in the past, and I think they did it this time. And Mr. Amadio, are you familiar with Administrative Code 25.212?

I don't have it in front of me, no. So if you would—. Okay. Is that the— what provision is that? What does that say?

Representative. So this is the administrative code that the division uses to determine whether or not that the individual is appearing on the ballot in a manner that is confusing or misleading to voters, or that compromises the fairness or neutrality of the ballot. They can look at preponderance of evidence, and when they make this determination, They can look at the campaign similarities. They can look at voter registration details. They can look at name similarity.

They can look at recent party switches. And so, this is not whether or not a person meets qualifications to run. This is clearly a different area which is contemplated in our regulations which says that it is not okay to mislead, uh, or appear on the ballot in a manner that's confusing or misleading. And so in my— and we do know that this is being contemplated outside of the legislative halls and in the judiciary, but there's evidence there that indicates that in fact this candidate, at least as far as the division is concerned, was trying to mislead the voters. And so I just want to put on the official record that as a member of the Alaska public, I was contacted about a candidate, and it had to do with, are they misleading their community?

Are they misleading the voters? And it was found that they weren't. And I think, you know, one of the things that we're hearing here is, oh, this, this has never happened before. Well, it's never happened before because the division has never found that that misleading element has been a part of it. The person that you mentioned, Eric Hafner, he— yes, he met the qualifications.

There were individuals who didn't want him on the ballot because it would influence other candidates. But the— it's very clear what the Constitution says. It's clear what the statute, you know, that what it takes in order to file for office. But once you've done that, the division does have a responsibility to determine whether or not the voters are being misled, whether it has to do with their, um, how long they've lived here, whether it has to do with, with their name, which is why I was contacted. Um, you know, and I can just say, and this might be an aside, but I have experienced identity theft, and I can tell you that when somebody else is trying to present themselves as you, it, it is a horrible experience, and I'm not saying that this is a case of identity theft, but I do believe that the Division of Elections, through regulation, it's 25.212, has the authority to investigate whether or not a candidate is appearing on the ballot in a confusing or misleading manner.

And I appreciate the Chair having this committee because we can throw those questions out there. My question has to do with when this is identified that it has happened, would it be the Federal Elections Commission or the Department of Justice that would do further investigation? Because the Division of Elections does not have the tools to, I think, adequately get to the, to the actual bottom of this. But I do think there are are ways that the Federal Elections Commission or the Department of Justice can actually do this. And the reason it's so important is that our elections matter.

People need to be honest, and I believe that if there's some sort of collaboration going on or an effort, and like the— to use the words in the code— that you don't want to appear on a ballot that is confusing or misleading. And I think we're all here today because it's confusing and misleading. We— this is why we're here. We need to get to the bottom of it. And I appreciate the ability to do that.

And I hope that this issue is resolved so that anybody who wants to run for office in the state of Alaska can do it. But they cannot do it in a manner that is going to confuse or undermine the importance of elections in our communities, in our state, or in our country. Thank you, Representative Costello. Just a couple of comments. It's my understanding that part of the confusion with Forrest J. McDonald was that he had previously run for election as Forrest McDonald and then was running in a subsequent election as J. McDonald.

So it was running under different names. And then I haven't stated this, but I'll state it now, that there is an Andrew Gray in the Fairbanks area who has run for office there. So I just want to state I don't believe anyone did any identity theft in that case. There's 11 of us in Alaska. We have that name.

And we can— we're all qualified to run for office. Just putting that on the record. We'll go to Representative Story.

Thank you, Chair Gray, and thank you, Mr. Amato, for being here today. Can you hear me fine? Yes. Okay, thank you. Yes, I had a couple things I just wanted to ask, and partly— and I know we're going to be asking these questions where you said, uh, Rep Gray, to ask today had to be when the division came in front of us.

Before, um, and when the division comes in front of us before, I would really like to know if they would be recommending something that the legislature can do to put into statute, um, how to clarify some of the questions we're having today about the Division of Elections. Is there something we can do that we should be adding legally to help have a smoother elections process where we can have good faith in our elections. And then the question I have, kind of around what we've been talking about right now, is does the Division of Elections have the legal authority to disqualify a candidate based on the candidate's motives? I know we are always very careful in our debates on the floor not to be impugning one another's motives. We, when we are making certain statements, and so I am wondering, Mr. Omoto, if you know, if you have any responses to that.

Can Division of Elections disqualify candidates based on the candidate's motives?

Like I said, previously mentioned, Representative, and I don't think— I have not encountered that before. I don't know what the motive of Mr. Haffner, a convicted felon in New Jersey, is for running for office in Alaska, but I would certainly suggest it would not be of the utmost high-mindedness. Type of motive, and where would you draw the line as far as a good motive versus an inferior motive or an unacceptable motive? Anyway, that's— I don't believe our laws allow that investigation. I mean, I know what the regulation says, and it does say confusing or misleading to voters.

So that I— that's the law, the Division of Elections regulations, and that would govern it. Even the division's own regulations do not address good motives versus bad motives or that type of thing. I think it would be a very difficult sliding, slippery slope to navigate. But that's just my opinion. I don't have any experience.

I haven't witnessed that Division of Elections, and I obviously was not aware of the thing that Representative Costello mentioned because that was a private investigation, uh, private in the sense that it was not, uh, reported in any of the courts. Nothing, nothing went beyond whatever, uh, division decided. Anyway, um, so no, I don't, I don't believe, uh, that that would be, uh, that, that authority is, uh, in our, uh, in the state law.

Thank you, Mr. Amodio. I'll state that I, in the queue, I have Representative Underwood, Representative St. Clair, and Representative Aishite. We'll do those questions and then we will move on to Andrew Dunmire from Legislative Legal Services to answer questions about the memo. So, Representative Underwood. Thank you, Chair Garay, and thank you, Mr. Amodio, for being here.

I just have a more broader question. Are you familiar with any other states besides Alaska where someone's been denied federal candidacy? And then in those instances, what has happened? What were the outcomes of those cases? Just as there's been any precedent set or whatnot.

Mr. Amodio. So, I, I'm not familiar with specific cases anymore, Representative. I will say, and, and I, when, when I was involved with the Haffner case and I saw the case law generally out there for federal office, I was shocked that you could, I could run for a, a House of Representatives in Texas today by filing whatever Texas requires. And according to the case law and ultimately what was decided in that case, all I have to do is show up in Texas on the day of the election or the day before, and I'm an inhabitant of Texas. If I win, I'm now the representative.

I mean, of course, the likelihood of winning is, you know, impossible. But my point is, it doesn't bar you. So that was my sense of it, but I don't know specific cases anymore. That was a couple years ago, and I apologize. I did not, you know, other than kind of looking at the Constitution and the general laws applicable to candidates appearing on the ballot, I did not go in and review my previous cases or national law.

So I don't know the answer to your question. Thank you. Um, Representative St. Clair. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Um, more of two comments or three comments than, than questions per se. Something that we're kind of missing here is that a complaint was lodged. The Division of Elections and the Lieutenant Governor did just— didn't just do this willy-nilly. There was a complaint which they were obligated to investigate. Mr. Sullivan has been given ample opportunity, and he still has an appeal pending to address this, but up to this point has not.

As was stated by Representative Costello and several others pertaining to confusion, there is that element there. However, he still has time for his appeal. Let the courts decide based on because Division of Elections, the lieutenant governor took action based off of a complaint. Mr. Sullivan has yet to, to my knowledge, respond substantively to those allegations. He has time for an appeal.

Let the court figure this out. I think that we're a little premature in doing what we're doing, and I appreciate the, the conversation and, uh, the, the secondary, uh, meeting with Division of Elections and with the lieutenant governor. But I, again, I think we're a little premature on this and kind of need to see what the courts do. We have several lawyers that are going to give opposing views, and that's kind of what they do. So it's ultimately going to come down to what a judge thinks.

Thank you. Thank you, Representative St. Clair. And Representative Eichide. Thank you, Chair Gray. Through the chair, Mr. Amudio, thank you for being here.

Just briefly, based on your knowledge of the U.S. and Alaska constitutions and working with Alaska law.

As I recollect, I'm allowed to use a version of the name I want to use on the ballot. They ask that on the declaration of candidacy. My formal name, sir, is Theodore John Eichcheid. I never use Theodore unless I'm in trouble with somebody and then they use that term. I go by Ted, and so I put down Ted on my declaration of candidacy, but I also go by the initials TJ for Theodore John.

Is it my right, my constitutional right and my legal right in Alaska to put down TJ Eischeid on my declaration of candidacy as APOC would appear to allow?

So the— I don't believe it would be APOC that would decide. That would be the Division of Elections. But I believe you can, but I don't know that. That would be a question really for the Division of Elections. If you go by TJ, if that's how you're known most commonly or that's the way you're, you know, most people will identify it, then, you know, as long as it's a name you've used or whatever as Representative Costello mentioned earlier with that other gentleman, Jay, I forget his first name.

But yes, I mean, I believe that you could. Ted is also fine. It's a, you know, common derivative. I'm known as Tom to my friends. So I would probably file as Tom, but I, you know, were to file anyway.

But I believe you could, yes. Follow-up? Yes. And, uh, am I allowed to change my party of affiliation and still be a candidate? I, again, that's a question for Division of Elections, but I don't see anything that bars that.

That you, uh, you know, you have to declare it on your, uh, declaration of candidacy. And if you switch your party shortly before filing I— there's nothing that I've seen that, that bars that. Thank you. In state law. Thank you, Representative Eichcheid.

Uh, and Mr. Amodio, thank you for joining us by phone today. Um, thank you for your testimony and for answering questions. We will now go to our next testifier. Our next testifier is Andrew Dunmire from Legislative Legal Services. Mr. Dunmire is going to walk us through his memo on the legal basis for the division's removal of Daniel J. Sullivan from the primary ballot and answer any questions from members.

Mr. Dunmire, would you please take yourself off mute, place yourself on the record, and begin your testimony?

Good afternoon. This is Andrew Dunmire from Legislative Legal Services. To the chair, the federal Constitution has three qualifications that a person has to meet to be eligible to be a senator, and those are age— they must be 30 years old— they must have been a citizen of the United States for 9 years, and they must be an inhabitant of the state when elected. In the 1990s, the state of Arkansas attempted to put term limits on their congressional officeholders by passing a constitutional amendment. And in the Supreme Court case, U.S.

Term Limits v. Thornton, the Supreme Court found found that that was unconstitutional because the framers of the Constitution intended the text that spells out those 3 requirements to be the exclusive list of constitutional qualifications. So to add a qualification that a person, for example, hasn't served 2 terms in the House, would add to that exclusive list. Um, so since the 1990s, that has been the case that controls questions like this. To run for office, and any attempt to put qualifications on top of those three violates the Constitution. So, for example, to look into a— to try to determine what a person's motives are to run for office would not be appropriate under that case, because having a certain motive or not having a certain motive is not one of those three qualifications.

And with that, I think that I'm available for questions if the committees have any. Thank you. I'll ask the first question and then go to Representative McCabe. We heard— Mr. Dunbar, we heard from Representative Costello. She referenced 6 AAC 25-260 about— sorry, 212.

212, About, uh, and I'm just gonna— I don't have it in front of me. So basically, that a candidate can't file in such a manner that it's misleading or confusing. Thank you for holding that up, Representative Sadler. I can't read that far. That they can't file in a misleading way to mislead voters.

Does that allow— does that— so my question is, is the Division's remedy to take away the misleading aspect or to remove them from the ballot? Is it giving them the authority to remove people from the ballot if they believe that the way they filed is somehow misleading?

To the Chair, this is— and for the record, this is Andrew Dunmire from Legislative Legal Services. The regulation that is codified at 6AAC 25.212 says that a candidate's name may not appear on the ballot with a designation of any academic, professional, personal, or honorary degree or title held by a candidate, or in a manner that is confusing or misleading to voters or compromises the fairness or neutrality of the ballot.

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme source of law in our country, and there's no administrative regulation that can override a constitutional requirement. So what this regulation tells the Division of Elections to do is to construct a ballot in a manner that is not confusing or misleading to voters. For example, by allowing them to— allowing them to discern between the two Daniel Sullivans. But this regulation does not allow them to to violate the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court that there are only 3 qualifications for the office of U.S. Senator.

Thank you. Representative McCabe. Thank you, Chair Gray. So, Mr. Dunmire, um, I think what we're— we're sort of talking past each other right here. You, in your letter, and we have been talking about what is required to hold an office in Alaska.

The constitutional requirements for what is required to hold the office. You didn't really mention in your letter the AC, which is what is required to run for that office, to have your name on the ballot. So in other words, the Democrats, when they argued the Haffner case, said that, you know, Haffner was qualified. The Republicans said he wasn't qualified to hold the office because he couldn't— and you can correct me if I'm wrong with this, but Um, he wasn't qualified to hold it because he was obviously in prison, as the Chair said, for a long time. So he wouldn't be qualified to hold the office, but he was still qualified to run for the office.

In this case, we aren't trying to determine whether or not, um, Mr. Daniel J. Sullivan is qualified to hold the office or not. That's what your letter sort of referenced. What we're trying to determine is whether or not he is qualified to run for the office or if the mere fact that he is using the same, pretty much everything as Senator Daniel S. Sullivan, including the same color website, virtually the same name, that I think is what Ms. Beecher relied upon is the fact that it wasn't the constitutional requirements to hold the office, it was the AC that parses out how he can run for the office. Am I off base here?

Um, through the chair to Representative McCabe, and for the record, this is Andrew Dunmire from Legislative Legal Services. In the trial court in the Haffner case, the plaintiffs argued that Mr. Haffner was not qualified to be a U.S. Senator because there was no way that he would meet the inhabitancy requirements. Which is not at the time that somebody files for election, but essentially on the election day. And the argument that the defendants assert in that case was that there was a possibility, however remote, that he could be pardoned or otherwise get out of prison.

And he had certified on his candidacy form that he met that requirement. And therefore would become eligible or would be eligible on the Election Day if he were elected to serve that term. Follow-up? So, I think what I just heard you say is that we, and you know, at first rub, when you first look at these, they appear to be opposite of each other. It appears like the— Ms. Beecher determined one way in one case and one way in another, but they— Essentially, these were two separate determinations because of the difference between filing to run and being on the ballot and actually holding the office, which you obviously couldn't do if you're in prison.

And that's the difference in the determination. So essentially, these cases are completely different because of the difference between an advisory circular— or, I'm sorry, advisory circular— between the AC 25-212 and the Constitution, right? I mean, is that right?

Through the chair to Representative McCabe, and for the record, this is Andrew Dunmire from Legislative Legal.

A person who seeks to become a candidate in Alaska needs to file a declaration of candidacy with the Division of Elections. And AS 1525.030 tells the Division what information is required. And in subsection A, there are 17 paragraphs of information that the person has to provide. That is what somebody has to do. That's the requirement that they have to fulfill to become a candidate for U.S.

Senator. The Division's role is to determine whether that candidate who submits that form form meets the 3 qualifications that are found in the Constitution.

Follow-up? So that doesn't seem to fit under that AC 25-212, where it gives the Division greater powers to determine whether or not the candidate can actually be on the ballot in the form and manner in which they filed, such as Dan— Daniel J. Sullivan versus Daniel S. Sullivan.. So you didn't mention that in what you just said just now. So I'm kind of getting more confused here. Through the Chair to Representative McCabe, and for the record, this is Andrew Dunmire from Legislative Legal Services.

6 AAC 25.212 subsection B, which is the regulation that we're talking about, in my opinion, doesn't give the division authority to kick somebody off the ballot at all. What that subsection does is tells them how to list people's name and, for example, not to add an academic or professional or honorary degree and not to list their name in the manner that is confusing. But that doesn't mean that if two people have the same first and last name or similar names that one of those two people should be removed from the ballot. That's not what that regulation gives the division authority to do.

I have many more, but thanks. I'll relent for now. Thank you. I will follow up on Representative McCabe's question. So, Mr. Dunmire, can you just unpack for us again the Thornton case in Arkansas in terms of how the term limits couldn't be added because— just can you just unpack the case again for us and tell us exactly what the Thornton case tells us with reference to what's happening today in Alaska?

To the chair and for the record, this is Andrew Dunmire from Legislative Legal Services. In U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, there was an amendment to the Arkansas state constitution that prohibited the name of an otherwise eligible candidate for Congress from appearing on the ballot if that candidate had served 3 terms in the House of Representatives or 2 terms in the Senate. And what the Supreme Court held was that that was an additional qualification on top of the 3 that are found in the text of the Constitution, so that basically the qualifications for office from that state, if that amendment went into effect, would have been that the person is old enough, that they've been a citizen for long enough, that they inhabit the state, and that they have not served 2 or 3 terms depending on which body. And the Supreme Court looked to the text of the Constitution and found that that is the ultimate arbiter of what the qualifications are.

And those 3 qualifications in the Constitution are the exclusive exclusive list of qualifications that states may impose for Senate or for the House of Representatives. Thank you. I'm going to follow up on that. So Representative McCabe had mentioned the Haffner case and said— I just wanted to correct that it was actually Democrats that challenged his appearance. Democrats didn't want him to be there because they thought that somebody who lived in another state and had never been here and was serving a 200-month prison sentence and couldn't get out would not be able— and I know for some people it's completely irrelevant, but I'm just going to bring that up— that, um, there's some question from Representative McCabe about there might be a difference between being able to serve and being on the ballot.

So in this case, yeah, Mr. Haffner was unable to serve because he was in prison, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the ballot. Can you verify that that is the case, that, that we can have lots of people on our ballots even if they can never serve?

To the chair, and for the record, this is Andrew Dunmire from Legislative Legal Services. That was the fact pattern in the Haffner case, that Mr. Haffner was in prison and almost certainly would continue to be in prison when his congressional term started.

I am not aware of any other cases in which if somebody filed that was unable to serve for that reason. And so I guess just to follow up, and then I'll go back to Representative McCabe, it seems like we have a broad— a much broader way of appearing on a ballot. And so in other words, the bar for removing someone from a ballot would be extraordinarily high because you just have to meet these very basic requirements. Now, serving in office is something different. Am I getting that wrong?

To the Chair and for the record, this is Andrew Dunmire from Legislative Legal Services. The bar to appearing on the ballot is submitting a declaration of candidacy under 15-25-030A and providing all the information that's required there to the Division. And then If the person is qualified, the ultimate determiner of whether they get to serve or not is the voters. Thank you. Representative McCabe.

Thanks, Mr. Dunmire. So, correct me if I'm wrong on this one as well, Thornton doesn't eliminate all the state rules, right? I mean, we can still enforce reasonable procedural requirements such as filing deadlines, signatures, fees, basic affirmations, and all that., and those are over and above what would seem— I mean, if you don't meet those procedural requirements, then you, then you can't be on the ballot. You keep going to the back to this constitutional requirement of what it takes to be a U.S. Senator.

That really has nothing to do with this argument. Right now, Director Beecher is saying he just can't be on the ballot. She is not making a judgment on whether or not Daniel J. Sullivan from Petersburg qualified to be a senator. She's making a judgment on whether or not, in her opinion, based on the AC 25-212, is he qualified to be on the ballot. Thornton didn't eliminate the state's ability to do that, did it?

Through the Chair to Representative McCabe, and for the record, this is Andrew Dunmire from Legislative Legal Services. You are correct, Representative McCabe, that in Thornton, the court held that the Elections Clause gives states authority to enact numerous requires as to procedures and safeguards which are necessary to enforce the fundamental rights involved. So some examples of procedures and safeguards that have been upheld were a $3,000 filing fee for candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives. What has not been upheld is a requirement that the candidate be registered, a registered voter, because that was determined to be a substantive requirement above the three that are found in the Constitution. And there is one case where a Nevada resident tried to file as a candidate to a special election to fill the vacancy of Congressman Sonny Bono.

And which is from California, and there was a state statute that said the candidates must reside in the state at the time of nomination. That, for example, was not found to be a procedure and safeguard. That was a substantive regulation that was struck down because it wasn't one of the three qualifications as found in the text of the Constitution. Thanks. Yeah, I'm old enough to remember the Bono case.

Thank you. I'm going to go to Representative Holland. But before that, In your memo, Mr. Dunmire, there's a lot of reference to previous cases. And in those cases, the Division says quite clearly multiple times that they don't— it's not their job to investigate, that they're not an investigative body, that they really will— can check publicly available data to verify basic facts, but they don't do deep dive investigations. Investigations.

Can you speak a little bit about who would do deep dive investigations and who would figure out, for example, what the motives of candidates are and why they're running?

To the Chair, and for the record, this is Andrew Dunmire from Legislative Legal Services.

It is not the division's role. They have no explicit authority in situations like requires us to look into a candidate's motivations. There may be fact patterns where an elections-related crime under AS 1556 implicates somebody's mental state. There, of course, could be APOC investigations where— where the candidate's actions are looked into. But for the qualifications to run for U.S.

Senator, It's not the division's role to look into their— the motivations of a candidate. Thank you. Representative Holland. Great. Thank you, Chair Gray.

To Mr. Dunmire, I think it's a two-part question, but I'm not trying to dive too deep. The discussion we're having regarding the requirements that are found in 25.212 around this clarification and avoiding confusing or misleading information.

The first part of my question is, does that requirement establish an eligibility criteria such that if somebody were to review the Declaration of Candidacy and in reviewing it came to some conclusion that there might be, or maybe there was some confusion, is that a criteria that would invalidate that candidacy and that candidate's application? Or is there potentially a curing mechanism? And the second part of my question is, as I try to understand 212, it appears to me that it is instructions to the Division of Elections on how they prepare the ballot. As opposed to instructions on how to fill out a declaration of candidacy, it would suggest to me, but I'm asking you to kind of opine on this, is if there is a problem with 212, is the curing process actually an obligation on the Division of Elections to cure the problem of confusion or misleading names as opposed to taking the course of action to simply invalidate the declaration of candidacy.

Through the Chair to Representative Holland, and for the record, this is Andrew Dunmire from Legislative Legal Services. I agree with the assessment that 6 AAC 25.212 is a regulation that provides instructions to the Division of Elections. And this section does not qualify or disqualify a candidate, nor does it give the division authority to disqualify or qualify a candidate. That regulation would be 6 AAC 25-260, which does give the director the authority to review complaint regarding the eligibility of a candidate. And that regulation says that it is limited to candidate qualifications addressed in the declaration of candidacy.

And again, the qualifications for this particular office are age, citizenship status, and whether the person will inhabit the state on Election Day. Thank you. I'm—. We'll go to Representative Mena and then to Representative St. Clair.

Thank you, Chair Gray. Through the Chair, I know we've been talking a lot about 6 AAC 25-2012 and also the other regulation on 260. And just pertaining to the authority of the Division of Elections in the state, we do know that the U.S. Constitution is supreme, and it seems that the Constitution overrides our ability to regulate our elections. Specific to Senate, congressional, and presidential races. So I just want to be clear.

The states and DOA can still regulate candidacies in the ballot, but is that just specific to local and state elections and not on federal races?

Through the Chair to Representative Mena, and for the record, this is Andrew Dunmire from Legislative Legal Services. The state does have more authority to regulate state elections and the qualifications for state offices than it does for a member of the U.S. House of Representatives or U.S. Senator. And, yeah, but 25 USC 260 limits the investigation of the director to the qualifications of the candidate. Thank you.

Uh, Representative St. Clair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Mr. Dunmire, uh, when you wrote your legal memo here, did, uh, did you know that the, uh, governor, Lieutenant Governor's, and Ms. Beecher's actions were in response to a formal complaint? Um, Through the chair to Representative St. Clair, and for the record, this is Andrew Dunmire from Legislative Legal Services.

I reviewed the 3 letters that were sent from Ms. Beecher and Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom to Mr. Sullivan, and I believe that 1 or 2 or 3 of those letters mentioned that there was a complaint filed. Okay, again, follow-up. So again, it goes back to the question: did you put that into consideration, that the Lieutenant Governor and Division of Elections were responding to a complaint, um, instead of just arbitrarily, uh, because of the similar names, um, addressing the issue, if that makes sense?

Um, through the chair to Representative St. Clair, for the record, this is Andrew Dunmire from Legislative Legal Services. Yes, Representative St. Clair, I did cite this regulation, 6 AAC 25-260, and pointed out that it limits the director's review to the grounds cited in the complaint that are related to a candidate's qualifications. And that is on page 3 of my memo. Okay, thank you. Um, we'll go to Representative Underwood and then Representative Eichheidt.

Thank you, Chair Gray. Um, to Mr. Dunsmore, thank you for being here. I have a quick question. As a newer legislator, I had not heard of, um, legislative subpoenas before, and I'm just wondering if you could, for the public— because I did have quite a few people, constituents, reach out to me about the legality of legislative subpoenas— any kind of historical context that you may have on that.. And I know that we sent out an initial one.

I believe it was potentially retracted. Could you just give a little bit of information for the public and for myself on how those work and the legality around it? Thank you. Through the Chair and for the record, this is Andrew Dunmire from Legislative Legal Services. That is not a topic that I have researched for today's hearing and one that certainly I can that our office can provide more information to you on, but not one that I'm at this moment able to answer questions about.

Thank you. I'll just say for the record that I believe our final testifier could answer a question about subpoenas. Representative Veisheit. Thank you, Representative Gray. Through the Gray, Mr. Dunmire, two questions.

One is if the Division of Elections receives a complaint about a candidate's qualifications to serve, my understanding from what you said before is they shall evaluate that candidate's qualifications on the 3 factors you listed and no more than that. Is that correct for a U.S. Senate, U.S. House seat? Is that correct?

Through the Chair to Representative Eichstadt, and for the record, this is Andrew Dunmire from Legislative Legal Services. That is correct. Under Regulation 6AAC 25-260 subsection C, the grounds cited in the complaint are the only grounds that the director may review, and those are grounds cited that are related to a candidate's qualifications. So for one of the two Federal Offices for Congress. Those are age, citizenship, and inhabitancy.

Okay, thank you. And as a follow-up, uh, so it seems like the candidate that was, um, uh, disavowed from being on the ballot met those qualifications from everything I understand. So the, the question— the follow-up question is, uh, Could Ms. Beecher, to eliminate the confusion aspect rather than remove one of the Sullivans from the ballot, couldn't the Division of Elections just simply put some kind of identifier on the ballot to help alleviate confusion, i.e., adding the word incumbent after Dan S. Sullivan, you know, something very simple. Wasn't that an option, maybe a least drastic option that Division of Elections could have chosen to do in this case from a legal perspective?

I am not— through the Chair to Representative Eichscheidt, this is— and for the record, this is Andrew Dunmire from Legislative Legal Services.

I— the answer to whether the director could put incumbent next to Daniel S. Sullivan's name is not clear to me. There are laws and regulations that prohibit the division from putting an honorary title along someone's name. I think what she could absolutely do is list their full names or include a middle initial to allow voters to discern between the two candidates. And then Regulation 6AAC 25.300 has rules for when candidates have the same first and last name, and it tells the Division to, to do exactly that. It says for each type of race placement on the ballot for candidates Sharing the same last name will be determined by those candidates' first name and, if necessary, middle initial.

Thank you. That was very clear to me. Thank you. Thank you. One, I'm going to ask a question based off of the June 15th letter to Dan J. Sullivan from Director Beecher.

And in— she's responding to complaints. We've had a lot of things like these are a response to a complaint. And I, I'm just reading from page 2 of her letter. She says that suggests an intent to confuse, appears to be deliberate. This consultant's work on your behalf is an isolation innocuous.

However, given all the facts, quote, it suggests a determined effort. The suggestion appears— it sounds like to me that, that all of these words sort of acknowledge that there could be a case where what appears to be true may not be true. It's not saying that these are facts. It's saying that this is what appears to be, just what is suggested by, um, what she's looked at. So I guess my question for, uh, Mr. Dunmire is, does the Division of Elections have the authority to remove somebody from the ballot because of her opinion about the way things appear?

Through the chair— to the chair, and for the record, this is Andrew Dunmire from Legislative Legal Services. No, the division director has no such authority in this kind of case. Going back to the Regulation 25.260 and US term limits, the division may only remove somebody from the ballot if they are not qualified for the office.

At this time, I would invite any legislator in the room to come forward and ask questions, including Representative Sadler, uh, Senator Elvie Gray Jackson, and Representative Galvin. In the meantime, Representative Costello has a question. Thank you. And, um, I think it's very clear what we're establishing here. Um, so We have established that the Haffner case is irrelevant because it has to do with qualifications.

We are not talking about qualifications. We are talking about the Division of Elections looking into— you can use the word looking into or investigating or finding out whether or not the manner in which the name appears is confusing or misleading, which I think the fact that we are here today and this is garnering so much attention in itself is showing and proving that there is a lot of confusion. So we know that the Division of Elections has the authority to look into this, so they did, and they determined that it is confusing and misleading. So they then reached out to the candidate and asked if they would be— if there would be any objection to appearing on the ballot as Sullivan, Daniel James Jr. To which, in response to that, it was crickets. There was no response, which to me indicates that the person is interested in misleading the public and the voters, because when they were given the opportunity to clarify who they are, they indicated, or by virtue of not responding, they clearly do not want to clarify that they are somebody different.

And, you know, for the public watching, I just want to make it clear that, you know, with all due respect to Andrew Dunsmire and the other attorney who testified in the committee, these are opinions that are being put forward by lawyers. In the case of Mr. Dunsmire, you know, the legislature hires attorneys to help us draft legislation. In fact, I'm waiting for an opinion right now. I wanted to know if an Anchorage School District policy violates any state or federal laws, which I will get an opinion back. These are just opinions, you know.

You could turn to your colleague you're sitting next to out there, or anyone watching, and to get the same exact opinion, and it will be— the weight of that opinion is, is irrelevant because the only authority that can come in and determine whether or not there was a misleading or confusion happening here and whether or not the division can actually go to the length of removing the name, which I think we should get to, you know, we should get to the bottom of whether it was confusing and misleading, would be a court, the Federal Election Commission, or the Department of Justice. And I personally believe that we should take it to that level. The state statute does actually give the Division of Elections the next step, which is to go to the courts. And so I— my question for our testifier is, do you support having this resolved by the Federal Elections Commission or the Department of Justice?

Through the chair to Representative Costello, and for the record, this is Andrew Dunmire from Legislative Legal Services. I don't support or oppose any action that's not my role. I'm not a policy advocate and I'm here to answer legal questions. And I think that the more proper venue to resolve this would actually be in state or federal court at the trial court level and then potentially appealed. Thanks.

Um, before we go to Representative Sadler and then Representative Galvin, I'll just make the comment that again, I spoke about it in my opening comments about the importance of the Division of appearing neutral, that that is really important, that they appear to be very neutral and nonpartisan. And when we look at the case of Jenny Armstrong, when we look at the case of David Eastman, when we look at the case of Eric Haffner, regardless of your feelings about the merits of those cases, they remained on the ballot. So really, removing someone from the ballot is a nuclear option. It is like just for, for an egregious violation. And so I think why this is important that we're asking these questions is what's different about this case than previous cases when, when there was an allegation made that somebody shouldn't be able to run for office and while trials were carrying out, while things were carrying out, they remained on the ballot.

And that's what I think makes this one different and unprecedented. Representative Sadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I truly appreciate the graciousness of allowing me the opportunity to ask a question. Question and make a comment to a committee that I do not serve on, but I know this is a joint committee, so we have various legislators.

With some indulgence, I guess everyone's got their opinion, and clearly the attention of the public and the attendance at this meeting is an indication that this is a big deal. But contemplate this situation: if 20 Alaskan residents were to change their names to the name of a candidate for another office and change their party registrations and all technically qualify It's called flooding the zone. That would be technically legal, and people on one side or other might argue that this is perfectly technically legal, but there is a regulatory obligation on the Division of Elections director to make a decision whether something— I guess I could cite it and read it— in a manner that is confusing or misleading to voters. And I think clearly flooding the zone with people of the same identity, same colors of the website, same typeface, on its face is clearly deceptive to voters. There seems to be a conflation of issues.

We hear constant references to the Haffner case, to Representative Jimmy Armstrong's case, and I think Mr.— Representative McCabe make a very— made a very important distinction. Though we're not talking about qualifications to run, but qualifications— I'm sorry, qualifications to serve, the question before the Division is qualifications to be on the ballot and a certain name. Uh, there is a regulatory obligation to the Division. Um, and so it's concerning that— there's concerning to me that there's been so many assertions. I, I don't want to impugn motives, but they're confusing red herrings that this is not about the Haffner case.

This is not about Jenny Armstrong. This is about a specific case and a specific fact pattern. And all that was— notwithstanding, I do have a question, and this is to, uh, Mr. Dunmire, who very clearly on the record states who he is, you know, you are an attorney for the legislative branch, for legislative affairs, and you're offering opinions as an attorney, but I guess this is a little bit out of your wheelhouse. You wrote an opinion that's a little concerning to me. What if there was an attorney from the Department of Law in the executive branch commenting on your decisions in a case regarding, I don't know, the drafting of a bill?

What we have here is an attorney for one branch of government passing judgment on attorneys for another branch of government. Mr. DelMeyer, does that give you any concern? And one more thing I will say, there's been a lot of assertions about the Division of Elections, and they are not here. This is a technique called debating an empty chair. And I understand that the Chairman said there are some chronological obligations, but it seems to me to be fair to allow the division to whom many allegations are being made would have the opportunity.

I hope that many of these same questions are addressed in Speaker's presence. So my question stands, Mr. Dunmire, any concerns about you as an attorney for one branch opining and criticizing attorneys on a separate branch? Through the chair, Representative Sadler, this is— and for the record, this is Andrew Dunmire from Legislative Legal Services. I don't believe that I have opined on the actions of an attorney from the other branch. I wrote a memo for this committee, which has oversight authority over elections in this state, and discussed the fact patterns of actions that were taken by the Division of Elections and applied law to those facts.

I have not seen any analysis from the Department of Law or heard any legal opinions espoused by the Department of Law and have not responded to any arguments made by the Department of Law.

Follow-up. Mr. Dunmire, I would dispute that. You have clearly opined that the division did not have the authority to apply the regulation. So you have clearly opined in the opposite. Thank you.

And thank you, Mr. Chair, again for the opportunity. Thank you. I'll just make a comment based on Ms. Representative Sadler's line of questioning about that we're talking— in the previous case we were talking about qualifications. My understanding, Mr. Dunmire, from reading your memo is that It seems to be that the Division of Elections is adding a qualification of filing with good intent, which is in fact not a qualification.

I see some shaking of heads. Can you explain how filing in good— with good intent is not being deemed a qualification or not? Thank you, Mr. Dunmire. Sure. Representative Sadler.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. President Sadler here again. Yeah, that's one of my concerns with the proceedings here is that The regulations clearly say, and I don't want to cite them again, I've been done, but I will, in a manner that is confusing or misleading. And I hear that allegations that the division director is making a judgment about misleading or not, the, the motivations, the motivations could be anything. They could be anything.

It could be sincere, but in a manner that is confusing or misleading. That does not speak to motivations. That the case here is not motivations, is simply the bald black letter, you know, Is the filing and the fact pattern confusing or misleading? I think a fair reading says that it is. Representative Sadler, motivation is alluded to in— if you look at the June 15th findings from Director Beecher.

And I just wanted to say, because you said that you feel that we're debating an empty chair, so just a reminder for the public and for everyone, she was invited on June 16th to appear. She was invited again on June 17th to appear. She was subpoenaed by email on Friday to appear, and she was subpoenaed in person by me on Sunday to appear. I think it's been made fairly clear that I would like Commissioner Bueschner to be in the chair, and so thank you for suggesting that we do that. I believe we've gone above and beyond to communicate that we would like to speak with Director Beecher.

Thank you, Representative Sadler. Representative Galvin. Thank you, Chair Gray. I appreciate you having this forum. I know that the public has quite a few questions.

And for me, my— I also have had a personal experience with regard to— it was a U.S. congressional race. And in my case, I, as an independent, I was listed in the ballot incorrectly. And so I tried to correct that. And what was interesting that I found out was that the court system, it went all the way up to the highest court and highest state court. And what we found out is that the court chose, they said that they agree it was an improper placement, it was a mistake made, and that the court chose not to get in the way because they were afraid they would slow down an election or make an election not happen.

So my question for Mr. Dunmire is related to one that you asked a few minutes ago, Chair Gray. It's, it's around how the process works, and especially when we know there's some gray area. And so given your knowledge, Mr. Dunmire, of how courts or the division has historically worked out whether or not a candidate stays on the ballot. Would you say that historically they've leaned toward not interfering with an election taking place and, in fact, not interfering with anyone having an opportunity to be— in the race? Or do they lean more toward removing a candidate if there's a question?

How have you seen that historically if you have done that bit of research? Through the Chair to Representative Galvin, and for the record, this is Andrew Dunmire from Legislative Legal Services.

There is a US constitutional rights to run for office. So a person has a First Amendment right to run for office and voters have a First Amendment right to vote for candidates that align with their values. And I think that historically courts trying to protect that right would lean in favor of including a candidate rather than excluding them. Eliminating a candidate from the ballot.

Okay, thank you. It sounds like there's still muddy areas to get worked out, and I appreciate that. And again, I appreciate you having this forum, all of you being present, and hopefully we can, through time, clear this up. But I also appreciate that time is of the essence, and in my case, it was just sorry you, you are listed as a Democrat. And that is what happened in my case.

But I also appreciate where— how they had to weigh in because they wanted to make sure that an election took place on time. So this is tricky. Oh, thank you. Thank you, Representative Galvin. We'll go to Representative Carrick and then to Representative McCabe and— well, actually, sorry.

I made a mistake. Representative Story, Representative Carrick, and then Representative McCabe.

Representative Story.

Uh, thank you, Rep. Gray. Um, I did not have a question right now. Sorry. Representative Carrick.

Just confirming you all can hear me again. Yes. Okay, thank you. Um, yeah, so thank you very much, Chair Gray, for coordinating with me to call this meeting today. I think this hearing and the invited testimony has been really helpful as tone setting for what we now know will be a later hearing in July on the same topic.

Um, and with your indulgence, I'd really like, as Chair of State Affairs to just make a statement if I can. Representative Carrick, can I come back to you? Yeah, we can do that if there's further questions. Yes, and we have an additional testifier as well. Okay, thank you.

Representative McCabe. Thanks, Chair Gray, and I'd like to publicly thank you for doing this as well and having us all together and with your patience with us and all of our questions, because it is important that the public see that we are that we care about elections. But for Mr. Dunmire, I just have one question, and I've been doing some research on this, and I ran across the term called nuisance candidate, and it seems to me that that's what Director Beecher has described in her determination that he didn't make his filing in good faith, that he was simply a nuisance candidate. Could you maybe expand on that a little bit and see, is that your reading of her letter as well.

Through the chair to Representative McCabe, and for the record, this is Andrew Dunmire from Legislative Legal Services. Representative McCabe, that is not a term that I'm familiar with, but I am very happy to research that topic and touch base with your office in the future. Perfect, thanks. And maybe the whole committee, through the chair, Chair Gray would be really good. Thanks.

Yes, I agree. Mr. Dunmire, if you could just— we'll send that to both House Judiciary and House State Affairs. Thank you. At this time, I think we'll go to our final testifier if there's no more questions for Mr. Dunmire. So our final testifier today is from former Senate Judiciary Chair Hollis French.

Hollis earned his law degree from Cornell Law School in 1995.

After clerking for a Superior Court judge in Anchorage, he joined the Anchorage District Attorney's Office in 1996 and worked as a state prosecutor. Hollis was elected to the State Senate in 2002 and served 12 years, including 6 years as the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he did issue a legislative subpoena. Welcome. Welcome to this joint committee hearing. Mr. French, would you please place yourself on the record and begin any remarks that you have?

Thank you. My name is Hollis French. I live at 2640 Telequanna Drive, and I appreciate the invitation today. Uh, I don't think my testimony will take very long. I don't think you need any special legal training to smell a rat here.

If a prisoner with no ties to the state of Alaska in New York State can be put on the ballot for federal office in the state of Alaska, I think the Division of Elections is sort of foreclosed from then on from, from engaging in what they've engaged in this case. I'll rely on my experience as a prosecutor and tell you it is extremely difficult, if not almost impossible, to prove someone's motive. It's never a burden we ask the state prosecutor to do. It's very— people are a mixed bag of emotions. A mixed bag of motivations, and we just don't do that.

It's a bad practice. I guess the only other thing I haven't heard said today is that there is another Dan Sullivan, a prominent one, who could easily be on this ballot. It, it might be confusing, but it's not Dan Sullivan's fault. It's not the other Dan Sullivan's fault. They just happen to share a name.

And there's a way, as the legislative legal attorney pointed out, there's a way to designate that in a neutral manner on the ballot and then put the burden on the candidates to remind everybody that they're the Dan Sullivan from Fairbanks or the Dan Sullivan with an S or the Dan Sullivan with a J. And I think the matter is closed right there. And so that— thank you for having me in to speak, but I'll close right there. Uh, thank you, Mr. French. Representative Underwood, do you want to ask your question about subpoenas?

Yes, thank you. Thank you for being here today, Mr. French. If you have any more that you want to expound on, on legislative subpoenas, I am a freshman legislator. It would be nice to kind of hear your historical context of when you issued one and any legalities that you know surrounding legislative subpoenas. It's a marvelous power that the legislature bestowed upon itself, really, in statute.

You're a separate branch of government. You have to have accurate information. You have to have access to people that have that information. I think it's sort of surprising in this case that it's a state official who's digging in their heels appearing in front of a committee. We were dealing with individuals who had information about a firing.

It was the Troop Brigade investigation, and we were looking into that. We subpoenaed Todd Palin and a bunch of other people. Many of them complied, some of them didn't. But no one— they challenged the legality in the sense that many people don't like that process, but no one was able to say that we acted illegally. As long as you obey the terms of the statute, you have that power to ask your committee chairs to issue subpoenas.

You might be for them, might be against them, but it's certainly something that you enjoy as a legislator. Representative Eichleib and then Representative McCabe. Oh, and Representative Koznicki. Mr. Costello. Thank you, Representative Gray.

Through the chair, thank you, Senator Hollis French, for being here. From your legal perspective, it was brought up that Daniel J. Sullivan had not answered questions submitted to him by Division of Elections, and I'm looking at the 7 questions. None of them seem to deal with the qualifications, in the U.S. Constitution to run for, uh, U.S. Senate. So if you were my lawyer and I was asking for legal advice and I, I got this memo and it said ask questions unrelated to the law, the Constitution, um, would you say I need to answer these things like who designed my website? Which is question number 4, design to process including names of persons.

Do I need to be compelled to ask things that are not related to law? Through the chair, Representative Isakson, I think your question answers itself and the answer is no. Okay, and just a follow-up. I did look at Senator Dan Sullivan's website. He's got a lot of blue and yellow and I also have blue and yellow, the colors of our state flag, on my website.

So I just want to make that note for the record. Thank you, sir. Representative McCabe. Thank you, Chair Gray. Gunny, good to see you and finally meet you.

So I'm curious to go back to the subpoena issue. If this committee issues the issues a subpoena and it is ignored, who enforces that? I mean, if the courts issue a subpoena, they send court officers or troopers out to get you, right? I mean, if the judge subpoenaed you and you decided not to go, they would send a trooper to go get you. In this case, who enforces it?

Are we going to send Michaela out to get you? That is what the statute says. So I contemplated that last session as well. Trying to get a Fairbanks official to come testify in front of Transportation, and the speaker wouldn't sign off on it because first off, she said it's a very poor look to have to do this. We should be able to do that as legislators without doing that.

But she also asked the question, what happens when he just says no? And so what do we pay for McKayla to go all the way from Juneau and strap on her gat and go get Ms. Beecher out of her office and shoehorn her into this hearing? I don't know. It seems to me to be a little bit complicated for something that we gave ourselves to do without the enforcement power, frankly. Through the Chair, I think the answer is in statute.

I think you can levy a fine. How you enforce that fine is another question. Okay. That was more rhetorical probably than I appreciate the answer. Representative Costello.

Thank you. Just for the record, we go back a long way, the testifier and I. When he was in the Senate, he represented me, and when I was in the Senate, I represented him. So I just think I was just going to throw that out there for some levity. But I think we've established today that the issue is not whether or not this individual is qualified to be on the ballot.

And also, I don't believe that motive has anything to do with it. I think it has to do with confusion of the voters. And we have established, by virtue of the fact that we're here, that it is confusing. And so the problem is whether or not it was intentionally designed to confuse the voters. I.e., was it a coordinated effort to confuse the voters on a very significant race that this individual has filed for?

That is the question. Was it— it's not whether it's confusing. It is confusing. It's whether or not was it intentionally designed to be confusing. And in your exchange with Representative Eichide, I take offense— not offense, but I, I would I like to point out that those questions that are being asked about the website, can the division look into the website, if this goes to the Department of Justice, those are exactly the things that they will be looking at, whether or not it was a coordinated effort to mimic another candidate who was running.

So my question to you has to do with, Mr. Sullivan was contacted by the Division of Elections and given the opportunity to to present himself on the ballot in a less confusing manner, because again, we've established it's the confusing manner that is the problem. How do you respond to the fact that Mr. Sullivan did not take that opportunity to present himself in a less confusing manner, but decided to remain on the ballot in a very confusing manner? Through the Chair, Representative, it's great to see you as well, and I enjoyed our relationship the years. Uh, I, I think I'll just answer by saying this: the Division of Elections has all the power it needs to designate those names in a manner that allows voters to tell the difference. It's not up to the candidate to solve the Division of Elections' problems.

And I guess I'll just add parenthetically, I have a hard time believing the Division of Elections would be engaging in this if it were Mayor Dan Sullivan who had stepped forward to be a candidate for the United States Senate. And so I think it's possible in a neutral way to designate these candidates on the ballot in a way that eliminates as much confusion as you possibly can without the United— without passing a law that says that no two people with the same name can run for the same office, which I think we can all agree is absurd and wouldn't get very far. As a follow-up, well, I actually disagree with you. I think if the former mayor had decided to run for office, that the Division of Elections would find that there was no confusion that was intentional. I believe that when you look at the facts here, and I believe somebody should look deeper into the facts, I think we've had the legislative legal division already suggest that really the Federal Elections Commission or the Department of Justice or the courts should really get to the bottom of this because I think what's making people so frustrated over this is that they believe that, oh, if you want to run for office, an entity can just come in and take your name off the ballot.

That is not what's at issue here. What's at issue here is he is qualified to run for office. You can run for all kinds of reasons. He meets all those qualifications. It has nothing to do with the Haffner case.

What it has to do with is the regulation that says that the division has to look into whether the manner in which the person appears on the ballot is confusing. And so, when they tried to address that, the candidate refused to take that opportunity. And so, what is the division supposed to do? Because when you weigh, on one hand, the interests of the public and having a person on the ballot in a non-confusing manner, because they're going to be voting for or against this person, or with ranked choice, they'll be ranking them differently. So the public interest is huge.

It— the public interest here is that the people whose names are on the ballot are not confusing to the voter, whether or not it's intentional or unintentional. And I believe that in this case, when you take the website, the changing of the party, how quickly the website went up, the fact that it's really almost un— it's— there's no difference between our current Senator Dan Sullivan's logo and what have you. You know, everyone sitting at this table has done a logo, and none of us have logos that are very similar. I mean, that it's, it's absolutely questionable why, why it exists that way. And so I, you know, again, I mean, do you support having this looked into by, by a court, or Federal Elections Commission or DOJ?

Through the chair, I think the ultimate answer from this can only come from a court. I'd like to ask a question based off of Representative Costello's. In your opinion, Mr. French, if the Andrew Gray who'd run for office in Fairbanks decided to run for U.S. Senate and I decided that I was going to file for the purpose of being confusing and to steal some votes from him, and I decided that I was going to create a website that looked just like his. Should I— am I allowed to do that?

I think the answer is yes. I think the answer is yes, too. That's why I asked. I think that I am allowed to file for the purposes of confusing. What's not allowed, which is very clear, is that the Division of Elections is not allowed to allow names to appear on a ballot in a confusing confusing manner.

Correct. But that's a direction to the Division of Elections, not to a candidate. Candidates—. We're in a free country, it's America— run for office for, for your own personal reasons. Well stated, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Um, Representative Story. Uh, thank you, Chair Gray. Uh, yes, my, uh, question has to do with the remedy when there is confusion. Is the remedy to take the candidate off the ballot, to disenfranchise a candidate, or are there other remedies?

And what would those other remedies be? And whose responsibility is it to develop those other remedies? At what point do you just cut off the candidate, or are you—. Are—. Is the Division of Elections the one responsible for making sure there's no confusion.

Through the chair, Representative Story. You know, if Joe Smith decided to run for office and, you know, the next election cycle there were 3 more Joe Smiths, I don't think you can blame the other ones for the fact that they have a common name. The reality is that the Division of Elections has to find a neutral, nonpartisan way to list these names on the ballot so that voters can tell them apart. And then I think it goes back to the campaigns. The campaigns have to spend some energy.

Lisa Murkowski had to spend energy teaching people how to spell her name. These candidates— campaigns have to spend some energy saying, "I'm the Dan Sullivan from Fairbanks. I'm the incumbent. Vote Dan from Fairbanks." And, you know, that's the solution in my mind. I don't think it's possible— I guess they could print pictures of the candidates, little thumbnail pictures..

But, but I, I just think it, it goes back, um, to that simple answer. Follow-up? Sure, please. Uh, thank you, Rep. Gray. And the follow-up isn't exactly for Mr. French, but thank you, uh, for being here today.

But, um, it would be— that was the question I have for the Division of Elections, is, uh, what, uh, in statute should legis— should be— should we perhaps as legislators put in there to help have— what remedies can we identify to help the Division of Elections have different steps to take? Maybe outline at what point do you disenfranchise the candidate by taking them off the ballot? But I would really— that would be helpful information, I think, for the process, the future process. Thank you, Representative Storey. Seeing no further questions for Mr. French, thank you so much for being here today.

Thank you for your comments. Um, we'll go to any final comments from the committee. I, I'll just say before we go to Mr. Kay, I'll make my final comments now. I— and it really is stemming from some of the comments from Representative Costello— I do not believe we're here because of confusion. The reason I'm here is because I believe that there's a case to be made that a qualified candidate was removed from the ballot and that the Division of Elections did not have the authority to remove that person from the ballot.

So my reasoning is not to figure out the confusion. It's to ask the question, was this person removed from the ballot? Did the Division of Elections have the authority to remove a qualified candidate from the ballot? And that's why I wanted to— that's really what the answer that I'm seeking. And then I just want to end by saying that I am very grateful to the hard work for the Division of Elections.

I don't want this to seem in any way as an attack on the Division of Elections' hard work to maintain elections that we, that we trust. And I mean, their work is essential to our democracy, and I'm very grateful to everyone at the Division of Elections, including Director Beecher, who I will just say, I had never served a subpoena before. That was the most pleasant experience of my life. She is a very kind woman. She accepted it with very, you know, with friendliness.

And so I want to thank her for that and thank her for her work. And I do look forward to seeing her at this hearing on July 22nd. And I'm grateful for her willingness to appear at that time to answer questions. So that's all I wanted to say. Representative McCabe.

Thanks, Chair Gray. And kind of, how did you spend your Father's Day? Well, I served a subpoena. It's true that elections and ballots should be governed by clear law. We all agree on that.

Not by an administrator's opinion about a candidate's motives or even a division-established regulation, right? So neither should they be manipulated by someone who never intended to serve but entered the race solely to confuse the voters and affect the outcome. Not saying that's the case here, but we are exploring why, why we're here, right? The bigger issue is that Ballot Measure 2 created the conditions for this mess in the first place. Alaska never had these kinds of name confusion controversies under a traditional party system.

The top 4 jungle primary and ranked choice voting system have introduced confusion, uncertainty, and growing role— and, and a growing role for election officials or bureaucrats to make judgment calls such as this that were never necessary when the party was self-regulating of its candidates on the ballots. The answer is not to give more discretion to bureaucrats. If statutory changes are needed to strengthen ballot integrity, we can make them in the Legislature. What we should not do is empower government officials to decide which constitutionally qualified candidates belong on the ballot. The clear answer is to restore a system with significant party distinctions and straightforward elections by repealing Ballot Measure 2.

Alaskans deserve elections decided by law and by voters, not by subjective decisions made in Juneau. So I appreciate the opportunity to say that. That's kind of what I've been feeling this whole time with this whole mess is we created this. Alaskans created this when we allowed Ballot Measure 2 to pass. Thank you, Representative McCabe.

Representative Eichheidt. Thank you, Representative Gray. Just thank you to you and Representative Carrick for having this joint meeting. You know, one of the things that I clearly got out of this meeting today is there were potentially two possible remedies, two extreme remedies. One is remove a qualified candidate, apparently because of their intent, which no one has been able to prove to me.

And personally, I have a freedom personally to have any intent I want. So, you know, we live in a free country. People who are qualified to run should be able to run. I, as a voter, should be able to vote for who I want. I'm not confused.

I've already come up with my own way to keep the two apart. I don't need to see a picture. Dan J. and Dan S. Sullivan. Dan J., junior, the new guy. Dan S., the incumbent, the senior person.

I mean, this is on the Division of Elections. They can fix this. They can maintain our freedoms, our constitutional rights. To run and to, as voters, to vote for the people who are qualified that are on the ballot that we would like to choose. So thank you, Mr. Gray.

Thank you, Representative Carrick. I appreciate this meeting. I'm looking forward to the one in July. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Weisheit.

Any other comments? Rep Carrick? Oh, yes. Chair Carrick, I apologize for not calling you chair earlier.

No, you're good to go. Um, thank you, Chair Gray, and thanks for chairing the hearing today, running the meeting down there at the Anchorage LIO in person, and for coordinating the invited testimony. I didn't have prepared remarks, but I took a lot of fastidious notes during this discussion, and I just want to thank the testifiers and the committee members all for asking questions because I feel like I've learned a lot. And as I said before, I feel like this is an important tone-setting meeting for the meeting we'll have later in July. And I just have a couple of things to mention.

You know, first off, I just want to say the Division of Elections, I really do believe, does such incredibly challenging and admirable, critical work in Alaska. I am extremely thankful to them for their intense focus on administering elections, and the House State Affairs Committee members know just as well as I do how much work they put into that. And we've heard a lot about it in our committee. But I also, as we were talking today, looked up the Division of Elections mission statement, and just to read it, it says it's to ensure public confidence in the electoral process by administering voter registration and elections with the highest level of professional standards, integrity, security, accuracy, and fairness. Um, and I think the key word in the mission statement relevant to this hearing today is administer.

And I have this really precise concern here. I believe, based on the legal references and opinions that this committee has heard from, at least at this point, that the Division of Elections has— in this case, they've differed pretty critically from their current mission. It's really clear from the testimony that the Division of Elections is not primarily an investigative body. That they may investigate, but that the limits of actions they may take from that investigation pursuant to complaints they receive is what's in question here. And I strongly desire clarity on that subject because I think there's a clear risk in the longer-term future to the Division of Elections and Alaska's election integrity if we see mistakes or differences of opinion in how this authority to investigate can be utilized.

And really, truly, my biggest concern here is that if quote unquote good faith, as was stated in the memo from the Division of Elections, becomes an additional implicit standard for candidacy, Alaska will have added more than just an additional requirement. We will have functionally added a subjective standard for qualification to run for office determined by what is currently an apolitical body, which is an extremely strong contrast to the simple objective federal and state standards that are in place today. And I just ask us to think about what is the risk of that action. I think in the immediate, the risk is that voters could be denied an opportunity to vote for a candidate who legitimately meets objective standards to appear on the ballot in the U.S. Senate race. But while this concern was kind of the impetus for convening a committee hearing today, I have a broader concern.

The broader concern here that was just iterated very effectively by the testifiers is first that we're going to reduce citizens' confidence that our Division of Elections is focused on the high volume of administrative work that they're meant to perform, not the political decision-making that could become a mission drift for them. Second, I am concerned that we could see reduced confidence for citizens that should they choose to run for office, and they meet federal and state qualifications, that their effort might be thwarted or might be additionally spent, um, outside of the typical work of candidates connecting with voters, working on legitimizing their candidacy to a nonpartisan entity, uh, rather than the courts, should those challenges occur. And then third, I have the concern that we may reduce citizens' power, that they alone ultimately maintain the authority in the political decisions of who's going to represent them, and that was stated today by Mr. French and others. So that's a huge concern. And then I think we heard, and representatives ask questions about it, about what are the alternatives.

Are there alternatives to the current action for the future to help better ensure fairness? And this is where I do think we really need to hear from the division and even the Lieutenant Governor to get more information, but it sounds like yes, there are options that the Division of Election could undertake to ensure alternative ballot demarcation, such as listing someone as an incumbent, that yes, it is actually the courts whose job is to ensure fairness when it comes to political issues of similarity, such as a name, a logo, website, etc., thus alleviating the concern of much of the impetus for this meeting today. If the courts were to undertake those kinds of questions and concerns. And then I just want to add a third alternative to this discussion, that another alternative to helping better ensure fairness is to come to the legislature for changes. So I, as chair of the Policy Committee overseeing elections law, just want to use this opportunity to invite the Division of Elections and all other interested parties, please bring your clarity-improving policy suggestions to my office and into our committee because we will hear those if we have the opportunity.

Um, ultimately, I just really want to extend my deepest appreciation to the division first and foremost. I know that they are not here today, but I do thank them for the work they do, and the subpoena is not meant to be entirely punitive. I do think this is a conversation that needs to have, uh, that we need to have as a group, and Ultimately, we moved the date of the subpoena not because there's not concern about the current case that's initiated this hearing, but because of the longer-term public interest that this hearing has generated. As the author of the subpoena, I accepted the request to move back that hearing date and hear directly from the Lieutenant Governor and Director Beecher later in July because I think there are some policy implications that are much broader than the case that's been in nuanced discussion today that have to be taken up, um, so that the Division of Elections can focus on that mission that they're meant to do, and the courts can focus on the issues that they're meant to perform an adjudicatory role in, and that the legislature can perform its role of ensuring policy clarity where needed. So again, I'm just really thankful for the hearing today.

I'm thankful to be able to chair it with Representative Gray., and I look forward to seeing you all in July. Thank you all for participating, whether online or in person. I really appreciate it. Thank you so much, Chair Carrick. I know you wanted to be last, but we have one more hand up.

Representative Hempschulte. Hi, apologies. Thank you, Chair Gray, and I appreciate those comments from Chair— Co-Chair Carrick, or I should say Chair Carrick for State Affairs. I just As someone who serves as an independent, it's really important to me that Alaskans did make the choices we did in 2020 with accepting ranked choice voting and, and making that how we, how we conduct elections. And I think the open primary is a really important part of that.

I don't know that the old system would have precluded somebody with an identical name from running. And then, and now you have the opportunity to rank. So if you have two people with the same name, you can rank the one that you want in your first place and then your second place, whatever name, Winnie the Pooh, whatever, can be in second place. So I just, I don't know that we can necessarily tag this situation to how we currently run our elections, and I think that we have gained more from how we run our elections now than what we've lost. I think Alaskans are smart.

They can, they can figure out a ballot. They can figure out whose name is whose. We just need to give them that opportunity. So I appreciate the time today and the opportunity to hear from a number of people, but I'm really eager to hear from Division of Elections next month. So Thanks for making that opportunity available as well.

Thank you, Representative Himschoot. Um, that concludes today's business before the committees. We will be meeting again on July 22nd, 2026 at 1 PM to hear directly from the Division of Elections and from the Office of the Lieutenant Governor. The division has agreed to produce documents in response to the House State Affairs subpoena by July 20th, 2026 at 5 PM. Those documents will will be provided to the committees as soon as they are received.

I want to thank again all the staff who made this meeting possible and just quickly thank Thomas Amodio, Andrew Dunmire, and Hollis French for coming forward and testifying. That House Judiciary and State Affairs are adjourned at 3:13 PM.