JUNEAU, Alaska (KTUU) – A legislative hearing into the legality of Alaska’s voter roll transfer to the federal government ended in partisan accusations Monday, with one Republican calling it a “set-up” and others saying it was unnecessary, while Democrats defended it as needed oversight.

“Andrew (Gray) and the committee has a bias. I mean, that much is obvious from watching it,” Rep. Kevin McCabe, R-Big Lake, told Alaska’s News Source walking out of the hearing before it gaveled out. “Most of the testimony was slanted against the state and against the federal government.”

The House State Affairs and Judiciary committees met jointly Monday to hear testimony about whether Dahlstrom violated the law when she transferred the entirety of Alaska’s voter rolls to the federal government.

Rep. Steve St. Clair, R-Wasilla, agreed with his Big Lake counterpart that the hearing was unnecessary.

“I think we’re speculating on what the intent of the DOJ is and I believe we need to wait and see,” he said.

Rep. Andrew Gray, D-Anchorage and chair of the House Judiciary Committee, pushed back when told of his Republican colleagues’ reaction.

“I think that I went above and beyond to try to include everybody,” Gray said as he left the meeting. “If people are saying that if the Obama administration had asked for the unredacted voter rolls from Alaska, that all these Republicans around here would have just been like, ‘oh, take it all. Take all of our information.’

“That is not true. That is absolutely not true,” Gray added.

Rep. Ted Eischeid, D-Anchorage, backed his House majority colleague, questioning whether Republicans would have preferred if the topic not be addressed at all.

“The minority folks on the committee had a chance to ask questions,” he said. “I think this is a meeting we needed to have. Alaskans have asked for it. I think there’s still a lot of unanswered questions. So shedding light on the state’s actions, that’s bias?”

Dahlstrom did not attend the hearing. Gray said she was invited multiple times but cited scheduling conflicts. The lieutenant governor oversees the Alaska Division of Elections under state law.

In her most recent public statement — published Feb. 25 on her gubernatorial campaign website, not through her official office — Dahlstrom defended the voter roll transfer, saying the agreement with the DOJ was “lawful, limited” and that Alaska retains full authority over its voter rolls.

“The DOJ cannot remove a single voter from our rolls,” she wrote. “Its role is limited to identifying potential issues, such as duplicate registrations or individuals who may have moved or passed away.”

Representatives from the state’s Department of Law and Division of Elections both testified in defense of Dahlstrom’s decision. Rachel Witty, the Department of Law’s director of legal services, told the committee the state viewed the DOJ’s purview.

“The DOJ’s enforcement authority is quite broad,” Witty said. “And so, we interpreted their request as being used to evaluate and enforce HAVA compliance.”

HAVA — the Help America Vote Act — is a federal law that sets election administration standards for states.

Lawmakers also heard from an assortment of outside witnesses who largely questioned the legality of Dahlstrom’s actions, including former Lt. Gov. Loren Leman, who served under Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski, and former Attorney General Bruce Botelho, who served under Democratic Gov. Tony Knowles.

The Documents: A Months-Long Timeline

As part of the hearing, the committee released months’ worth of documents between the Department of Justice — led by Attorney General Pam Bondi — and Dahlstrom’s office, detailing the effort to transfer Alaska’s voter rolls over to Washington.

The DOJ first asked Dahlstrom to release the voter rolls in July of last year, citing the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, which requires states to allow federal inspection of “official lists of eligible voters.”

Dahlstrom agreed to release the records in August, providing a list of voters designated as “inactive” and “non-citizens,” along with their voting records and the statewide voter registration list — but it did not include what the DOJ wanted.

“As the Attorney General requested, the electronic copy of the statewide [voter registration list] must contain all fields,” reads an email sent 10 days after Dahlstrom agreed to release the data, “including the registrant’s full name, date of birth, residential address, his or her state driver’s license number or the last four digits of the registrant’s social security number.”

Dahlstrom agreed to provide the full details months later, in December, citing a state statute that permits sharing confidential information with a federal agency if it uses “the information only for governmental purposes authorized under law.” Those purposes, she wrote in the email, are to “test, analyze and assess the State’s compliance with federal laws.”

“I attach some significance to the fact that it took the State … nearly four months to respond to the Department of Justice’s demand,” former AG Botelho told the committee.

That same day, Dahlstrom, Alaska Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher and DOJ Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon signed a memorandum of understanding governing how the data could be accessed, used, and protected.

Dahlstrom’s office publicly announced the transfer nine days after the MOU was signed — nearly six months after the DOJ first made its request.

“Alaska is committed to the integrity of our elections and to complying with applicable law,” Dahlstrom said in the December statement. “Upon receiving the DOJ’s request, the Division of Elections, in consultation with the Department of Law, provided the voter registration list in accordance with federal requirements and state authority, while ensuring appropriate safeguards for sensitive information.”

A 10-page legal analysis from legislative counsel Andrew Dunmire, requested by House Majority Whip Rep. Zack Fields, D-Anchorage, concluded that the DOJ’s demand defied legal bounds.

“The DOJ’s request for state voter data is unprecedented,” Dunmire’s analysis states, adding that the legal justification the DOJ used to demand access to the data has never been applied this way before.

“Multiple states refused DOJ’s request, which has resulted in litigation that is now working its way through federal courts across the country,” he adds.

The Senate holds an identical hearing Wednesday, when its State Affairs and Judiciary committees take up the same questions.

See a spelling or grammar error? Report it to web@ktuu.com

Copyright 2026 KTUU. All rights reserved.

TUCSON, Ariz. — Jaden Bradley scored 17 points, Motiejus Krivas had 13 and No. 2 Arizona clinched the outright Big 12 regular-season title with a 73-57 win over No. 6 Iowa State on Monday night.

The Wildcats (28-2, 15-2) secured at least a share of the conference crown by using big runs in each half to beat No. 14 Kansas 84-61 on Saturday.

Arizona earned it outright by smothering Iowa State defensively to give Tommy Lloyd his 140th victory, most in NCAA history in a coach’s first five seasons.

“The Big 12 is the best basketball conference in the country,” Lloyd said while addressing the home crowd after the game, “and to win it by a couple of games, it’s pretty impressive. So take your hats off to these guys right here.”

Coming off their first home loss of the season, the Cyclones (24-6, 11-6) labored against Arizona’s physical defense, shooting 29% from the field, including 7-of-30 from 3-point range.

During his postgame news conference, Lloyd called out the narrative surrounding his team when discussing the Wildcats’ toughness and physicality.

“I think the narrative that we were soft is lazy. I mean, look at our stats, look at our analytics — we’ve always been a great rebounding team, we’ve always pounded the paint,” Lloyd said. “If you want to just be lazy and not pay attention and say we’re soft because we’re on the West Coast, be lazy, and I’d love to play against you.”

Tamin Lipsey led Iowa State with 17 points, but leading scorer Milan Momcilovic was held to five points on 2-of-8 shooting. The nation’s best 3-point shooter at 51%, Momcilovic went 1-for-5 from beyond the arc.

Neither team could make much of anything, due to good defense and poor shooting.

Iowa State shot 9-of-33 from the field and 4-of-20 from 3 in the first half.

Arizona labored most of the half as the Cyclones focused on defending the paint before the Wildcats closed on a 15-3 run to lead 37-25 at halftime.

It only got worse for Iowa State to start the second half. The Cyclones missed their first eight shots as Arizona stretched the lead to 16.

Iowa State briefly found an offensive rhythm, using a 10-1 run to pull to within 44-37, but didn’t hit a field goal for more than five minutes as Arizona stretched the lead back to 15.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

BAKERSFIELD, Calif.(KBAK/KBFX) — The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a California law that limited when schools could require staff to disclose a student’s gender identity, clearing the way for schools to tell parents if their children identify as transgender without getting the students’ approval.

The decision came after religious parents and educators, represented by the Thomas More Society, challenged California school policies aimed at preventing staff from disclosing a student’s gender identity.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean and professor of law at the University of California Berkeley School of Law, said the ruling favors parents’ ability to be informed. “The Supreme Court today rules in favor of the claim of parents to be able to know the gender identity and gender pronoun of the children,” Chemerinsky said.

FILE:{ }transgender flag against blue sky background { }(Photo: AdobeStock)

The decision temporarily blocks a state law that bans automatic parental notification requirements if students change their pronouns or gender expression at school. The Thomas More Society called the decision a major victory for parents, saying the court found California’s policy likely violates constitutional rights.

Chemerinsky said the Supreme Court’s action is an emergency ruling. “This law is now put on hold. So what this means is that schools can require that teachers and other staff inform parents of the gender identity or gender pronouns of children,” he said.

Kathie Moehlig, founder and executive director of Trans Family Support Services, said she is concerned about how the ruling could affect students who do not have supportive families.

“I am really concerned about our kids that do come from these non affirming homes, that they know that they’re going to get in trouble, that they’re going to possibly have violence brought against them possibly kicked out of their homes,” Moehlig said.

Moehlig said parents should eventually know, but that the conversation should happen when a student feels safe. “Our students are going to be less inclined to confide in any adults that might be able to help to get them access to mental healthcare, to a support system. They may still tell their peers but they’re certainly not going to tell any other adult,” she said.

Equality California, a LGBTQ+ civil rights organization, shared a statement:

Equality California, the nation’s largest statewide LGBTQ+ civil rights organization, released the following statement from Executive Director Tony Hoang in response to today’s U.S. Supreme Court shadow docket ruling in Mirabelli v. Bonta regarding California’s student privacy protections for transgender youth. Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in this case is deeply disturbing. By stepping in on an emergency basis, the Court has effectively upended California’s student privacy protections without hearing full arguments and before the judicial process has run its course. While not surprising, this move reflects a dangerous willingness to short-circuit the established judicial process to dismantle protections for transgender youth. While this case continues to be litigated, the ruling revives Judge Benitez’s prior decision, which broadly targets numerous California laws protecting transgender and gender-nonconforming students — threatening critical safeguards that prevent forced outing and allow educators to respect a student’s affirmed name and pronouns at school. These protections exist for one reason: to keep students safe and ensure schools remain places where young people can learn and thrive without fear. To be clear: today’s decision does not impact California’s SAFETY Act, which prohibits school districts from adopting policies that forcibly out transgender students. The SAFETY Act remains in full effect, and we will continue defending it. Transgender youth deserve dignity, safety, and the freedom to learn without fear. We will never stop fighting for transgender youth and their families. Equality California will continue working with parents, educators, and advocates to ensure schools remain safe, welcoming, and focused on the success and well-being of every student.

The case now returns to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which will decide whether the California law is constitutional.