Alaska Public Media

The Alaska Court of Appeals took up the case of a Whittier woman Thursday who was indicted in 2023 on felony charges of voter misconduct.

Like others born in American Samoa, Tupe Smith is a U.S. national but not a U.S. citizen. Smith says she thought that meant she could vote in local elections but not presidential elections.

When filling out voter registration forms in the past, Smith and her lawyers say a Whittier city official told her to check a box that said she was a U.S. citizen, even though Smith knew she wasn’t, because the forms did not have a box for U.S. national.

That led to an investigation by Alaska State Troopers, who arrested Smith in late November 2023.

Voting rights advocates have linked Smith’s case – and a similar, separate case that includes some of her family members in Whittier – to national efforts by conservatives to end birthright citizenship in the United States. The advocates say the plight of people born in American Samoa highlights a group that is already being denied the right to vote.

After a grand jury indicted Smith in early 2024, her lawyers asked a Superior Court judge to toss the indictment, saying a trooper who testified to the grand jury had misled them on the issue of whether Smith intentionally checked the box saying she was a U.S. citizen.

The judge denied the request. But in a rare move, the Alaska Court of Appeals accepted Smith’s appeal before the Superior Court judge’s final decision and on Thursday heard oral arguments from one of her lawyers, as well as an attorney for the state.

Now, one of the main sticking points is whether the words “knowingly” and “intentionally” mean the same thing in regards to a person making a false statement on a voter registration form.

While some people might use the terms interchangeably, doing something “intentionally” requires a higher mental state – in legal terms, mens rea, or “guilty mind” in Latin – than doing something “knowingly.”

Smith’s attorney, Whitney Brown, told the three-judge Appeals Court panel Thursday that the words do not mean the same thing. In writing the law on voter misconduct, Brown said, the Legislature used both terms differently and therefore they should be understood differently.

“The record also reflects that if she had known she was not supposed to vote, she would not have done so,” Brown said. “So the state has just shown no evidence of an intent to mislead or deceive. So we believe that the court, in this instance, can take the extra step of just dismissing the indictment.”

The state wants the Appeals Court to send the case back to the Superior Court for a final decision. The state’s attorneys argue that the words “intentionally” and “knowingly” can mean the same thing.

“It’s not that she didn’t know what she was writing was false. It’s that she thought she was supposed to write something that she knew was false for these specific purposes, and that’s a little bit different,” Assistant Attorney General Kayla Doyle told the Appeals Court judges.

Doyle agreed with Brown that it was a difficult, but important, case. And there were multiple puns made in Thursday’s oral arguments – intended or not – about how intentional the Legislature had been in including the word “intentional” in the law on voter misconduct.

The Appeals Court will make a decision in the case at a later date, though it’s unclear when that will be.

WASHINGTON — Sen. Lisa Murkowski was among a group of senators who met with the foreign ministers of Denmark and Greenland Wednesday, trying to provide an assurance that they couldn’t get from the White House: That Greenland is safe from a U.S. military incursion.

“I think it’s important to send the message that here in the Congress, we recognize and support the sovereignty of the people of Greenland,” Murkowski, the sole Republican in the meeting, told reporters afterward.

President Trump continues to say that the United States must take Greenland, for strategic purposes.

Murkowski and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., co-sponsored a bill this week to prohibit the administration from spending any funds to “blockade, occupy, annex or otherwise assert control” over Greenland or the territory of any NATO ally.

“This is a message that I think it’s very clear, and very strong,” Murkowski said. “And, quite honestly, one that I never thought I would have to author and introduce into the United States Congress.”

Murkowski didn’t say whether any other Republicans agreed to support the bill, though Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., gave a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday saying an aggressive move on Greenland would be a calamity and gain the United States nothing.

He, like Murkowski, say seizing Greenland would shatter the NATO alliance.

Murkowski said it’d be better if the president changes his rhetoric on his own, without Congress having to pass her bill.

“I hope it’s ultimately not necessary,” she said. “But we are operating in times where we’re having conversations about things that we never thought even possible.”

Whether Congress has any appetite to rein in the president is unclear.

Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, said the legislative branch isn’t living up to its constitutional duty to check and balance presidential authority.

“Congress has abdicated its power, largely,” King said. “I’d say it’s the seventh inning. We’re behind four to three, but the game isn’t over.”

Minutes after he said that, the Senate voted to reject a resolution that would have curtailed Trump’s future use of military force in Venezuela.

Alaska’s senators, as expected, split on the issue. Murkowski, like King and all the Senate Democrats, supported the resolution, which would have required Trump to seek Congressional approval for further military action. Sen. Dan Sullivan opposed it.

The vote in the Senate on whether to block the measure was 50-50, requiring Vice President J.D. Vance to cast the tie-breaker.

The Alaska House of Representatives will have two new faces when lawmakers return next week for the start of the legislative session. Gov. Mike Dunleavy appointed Mat-Su Republicans Steve St. Clair and Garret Nelson to fill two open seats in the state House.

So, who are these two new lawmakers, and what do they hope to accomplish in their first year as a budget crunch looms?

The newcomer: Rep. Garret Nelson, R-Sutton

Newly minted Rep. Garret Nelson says he’s doing his best to get up to speed with the session fast approaching.

“I’ve never been up until 2 o’clock in the morning so many days in a week in my life as I have been this week, trying to figure this stuff out,” Nelson said in an interview.

Nelson grew up on a family cattle ranch in Mackay, Idaho, and has spent most of his life in the private sector. He spent some of his early career as a welder, later moving into sales at the financial services firm Gravity Payments. He, his wife and nine children moved to the Mat-Su community of Sutton in 2016, where he served as chair of the local community council.

Nelson is steeling himself for what could be a tough first year. He called the world of politics a “cesspool.”

“My expectations are, like, to hold to principles as much as I can,” he said. “I just expect to go down and get my teeth kicked in.”

Nelson has already found himself in something of a spat with a senior Republican senator, Anchorage Sen. Cathy Giessel, who suggested in a newsletter that his large family could compromise his ability to act in the state’s best interest when voting on the Permanent Fund dividend.

“At what point does a vote for a ‘full dividend’ comprise a conflict of interest, or even a breach of ethics? Legislators have gone to jail in the past for accepting money in payment for their votes,” Giessel wrote in a newsletter to constituents.

Nelson said the comment was “grossly inappropriate” and “weird.”

In a text message, Giessel stood by the comment and said she had raised a legitimate question. Giessel said any suggestion that she had insulted Nelson’s family was “absurd.”

Nelson calls himself an “unashamed conservative” and often references his Christian faith and devotion to family. He says he’s in favor of paying large Permanent Fund dividends in line with a formula outlined in state law, about $3,800 this year. Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s budget proposal would do exactly that by taking $1.8 billion from the state’s main savings account.

At the same time, though, Nelson said that drawing from savings might not be the right move. The state shouldn’t just try to live off its savings and put off harder questions for another day, he said, just as a family shouldn’t spend more than it brings in.

“We could raid the Permanent Fund and pay all our bills this year, piece of cake, you know what I’m saying? We could pay all the bills and give everyone a full PFD, and everyone’s going to be happy, but that’s not a good long term solution.”

Nelson says he hasn’t quite figured out the right approach — he says he’s still boning up on the ins and outs of the myriad issues facing the Legislature.

But Nelson says he’s planning to bring with him a built-in support system. Nelson says the whole family will join him in Juneau for the session.

“The way that we’re doing it is, like, it’s a family adventure,” he said. “We are all in this together.”

The veteran: Rep. Steve St. Clair, R-Wasilla

Joining Nelson in the House is Rep. Steve St. Clair, a longtime staffer for former House speaker and now-Sen. Cathy Tilton, a Wasilla Republican. St. Clair spent two decades as a military policeman, including a stint at Fort Wainwright in the early 2000s, before moving into conservative politics.

Like Nelson, St. Clair said in an interview that he, too, is spending long nights preparing for his first session. But with seven years of experience in the Capitol, plus an MBA, he said he thinks he’ll be able to hit the ground running.

“I’m a budget guy,” he said, “but I’m also very familiar with all the other departments, their budgets. I’ve worked on amendments. I’ve worked on bills.”

That means he’s coming into the session with some ideas for how to shrink the state’s budget gap — for example, freezing state workers’ pay, and gradually reducing so-called optional Medicaid services offered by the state. Those include things like dental and vision care and prescription drugs.

“They’re not required by law. Basically, it’s the Cadillac version instead of the (Ford) Pinto version,” he said. “I think we need to pare that down.”

St. Clair said he’s also concerned about proposals to restructure the Permanent Fund to function more like a university endowment, one area he expects the bipartisan House and Senate majorities to focus on this year.

But on most fronts, St. Clair acknowledged he might not get his way, given that he’s in the minority for his first year in office.

St. Clair said he’s not expecting lawmakers to solve the state’s budget issues in the four months of the session, given that it’s an election year, but St. Clair says he’ll do his best to contribute.

“I’m humbled to be here and (I’m) going to do the best I can for my district and Alaskans,” he said.

WASHINGTON — Democrat Mary Peltola announced Monday that she’s running for U.S. Senate, taking on Republican incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan.

Peltola served one partial and one full term in the U.S. House, becoming the first Alaska Native person elected to Congress. She then narrowly lost her seat in 2024.

Her announcement Monday came with a video portraying her salmon-centered family life on the Kuskokwim River. She repeats her previous campaign slogan: “Fish, family, freedom.” She also hearkens back to Alaska senators who served in less partisan times.

“Ted Stevens often said, ‘To hell with politics. Put Alaska first,'” Peltola says on the video. “It’s about time Alaskans teach the rest of the country what Alaska first and, really, America first looks like.”

(Peltola modified Stevens’s oft-repeated quote. The late senator’s catchphrase was actually “To hell with politics. Just do what’s right for Alaska.”)

Nationally, Democrats believe that with Peltola on the ballot, Alaska presents one of their best hopes of flipping a seat. Political analyst and statistician Nate Silver said in a social media post last week that Democrats still have an uphill battle to win back the Senate majority but that Peltola’s candidacy moves their chances in Alaska from a long-shot to plausible.

Sullivan has already raised $6 million this election cycle. He has President Trump’s endorsement and maintains a strong alignment with Trump.

But, in what Democrats took to be a sign that he’s feeling the political heat, Sullivan last month unexpectedly voted to extend health insurance subsidies. He’s also touting a new bill that targets one of Peltola’s primary issues: Bycatch, or the accidental catch of salmon by the pollock fleet.

For U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Peltola’s candidacy presents a dilemma. They’re both moderates, and Murkowski endorsed Peltola in the past, despite their party differences. The senator declined to pick a side when a reporter asked before Christmas. But Thursday Murkowski said she’d made a decision: She’s endorsing her Republican colleague.

“We’ve had a pretty solid team here in the Senate for the past 12 years, so we want to figure out how we’re going to keep in the majority,” she said. “And Dan delivers that.”

Both sides are expected to pour tens of millions of dollars into the race.

Sullivan’s last race in 2020 was one of the most expensive elections in state history, with spending by the campaigns and outside groups totaling more than $57 million.

Sullivan was outspent but beat independent candidate Al Gross by a substantial margin.

Peltola lost her House seat to Republican Nick Begich. After ranked ballots were tallied in 2024, she had almost 49% of the vote to his 51%. (The rankings had little impact on the final result in that race. Before voters’ second- and third- choices were counted, Begich’s lead was slightly smaller.)

Sullivan and Peltola will face off first in a nonpartisan primary in August. The top four candidates will advance to a ranked-choice ballot in November.

Ski patrollers at Alyeska Ski Resort in Girdwood rescued a dog from a deep ravine last week that had been missing for 13 days.

Otis, who’s described as a friendly Bernese Mountain Dog who loves snacks, was reported missing on Dec. 17 from his home in Girdwood on Crystal Mountain Road.

Then, on Dec. 29, an Alyeska staff member heard a faint bark as they were heading up the Ted’s Express lift for an early morning shift, said Bayne Salmon, mountain communications manager.

“Later that day, another patroller on staff heard another bark while they were heading up the same chair lift, and upon further review, looked into the canyon and noticed a brown, fuzzy dog deep in the canyon,” Salmon said.

Salmon said a team of five patrollers grabbed rescue gear, found an entrance to the ravine, and — after coaxing Otis with treats — were able to harness him and lift him out. The dog then walked down to the aid room with his tail wagging, Salmon said. Otis got water and lots of love from his rescuers.

Salmon said ski patrollers weren’t professionally involved with locating Otis but stepped in to help with his rescue. He said the team was ecstatic to find the dog after multiple days of below-freezing temperatures.

“It’s really positive, you know, jovial,” he said. “Everyone was thrilled to find him and [it’s] just hard to believe how long Otis had been out there, and to find him in good condition was a miracle, truly.”

Instances like this are unusual because dogs aren’t allowed on the ski hill in the winter, Salmon said.

The spot Otis was found in is extremely steep, technical terrain. From start to finish, he said the rescue took about two hours. Salmon wasn’t directly involved in this rescue, but he said it sounds like Otis was a good patient.

“He was not enthusiastic about wearing the dog evac harness, but I think his exhaustion from his long, cold adventure led him to mostly just be still and calm as we raised him out of the canyon,” Salmon said. “Overall, he’s a good boy.”

Salmon said he’s heard Otis lost some weight, but is happy to be back home.

U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski struck a note of skepticism in her reaction to Saturday’s military operation ousting Venezuelan leader Nicholas Maduro.

“While I am hopeful that this morning’s actions have made the world a safer place,” Murkowski wrote in a social media post Saturday, “the manner in which the United States conducts military operations, as well as the authority under which these operations take place, is important.”

She said the Trump administration hasn’t given Congress enough information to evaluate the legal basis for it.

Murkowski is among a handful of Republicans in Congress to raise questions or doubts about the operation. In November, she was one of only two GOP senators who voted to support a measure that would have blocked military action in Venezuela without the approval of Congress.

Sen. Dan Sullivan’s response was more in line with the majority of congressional Republicans. He issued a statement praising President Trump and commending the military for its skill and courage. Sullivan’s post did not directly address Trump’s pronouncement that the U.S. would temporarily “run” Venezuela, but it did reference “painful and difficult lessons learned” from the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. That invasion rid a country of its dictator but enmeshed the United States in an eight-year war.

Alaska Congressman Nick Begich also praised Saturday’s military action in Caracas, calling it a “flawless execution of American power and capability.”