Connect with us

Alaska

Could a solution to provide legal care in Alaska work in rural Minnesota?

Published

on

Could a solution to provide legal care in Alaska work in rural Minnesota?


Those living in rural areas face several challenges when it comes to accessing legal care; challenges that oftentimes affect their health and can prevent them from getting out of unsafe situations.

A model that’s been successful in Alaska may address some of those legal challenges. Michele Statz, associate professor at the University of Minnesota Medical School, refers to them as “health harming legal needs.”

Statz has conducted research on access to civil justice in rural, tribal and state court jurisdictions, primarily across northern Minnesota and northern Wisconsin. She has noticed that statewide solutions don’t always address the challenges that rural communities face when seeking legal care.

“The prevailing ‘access to justice’ (initiatives) are almost unfailingly designed by people in urban areas with urban populations in mind,” she said.

Advertisement

Statz views legal care as something that can determine someone’s future outcomes, not just job or housing opportunities, but even one’s health.

“If (these issues) are not addressed in a timely and accountable and trusted way, they often compound existing health issues or introduce brand new health problems for individuals and families,” Statz said. “I see that as a crisis when it comes to health and well-being not only in that immediate moment, but also there are profound health implications for not being able to address the fact that your utilities have been shut off in the winter, or the fact that you’re evicted and there’s no affordable housing in a rural community.”

Through a $1 million grant from the National Science Foundation, Statz and a team of researchers will be evaluating Alaska’s “community justice worker” model, which has allowed non-attorneys to represent people — giving people who are embedded in communities the tools to provide legal care.

Northern Minnesota, like many other rural communities, has an attorney shortage, which Statz thinks could be attributed to the fact that many lawyers are retiring and not being replaced, and that Legal Aid centers are usually in urban areas.

Minnesota has several services often termed as “self-help supports” that are forms of support for people who are trying to represent themselves, but those don’t address many challenges that communities face, Statz said.

Advertisement

“They (the supports) really assume that people will have smartphones and cellular reception and broadband and tablets. And not only legal literacy, but also technological literacy. They’re often also predicated on broader infrastructure assumptions … like they can get to the courthouse on time, and if they can’t, they can just Zoom in. Those kinds of assumptions just don’t work in many rural communities and they definitely don’t work for rural individuals who might not have reliable personal transportation, who might not have consistent childcare, who might be doing shift work, who can’t necessarily drive three hours to the nearest legal aid center,” Statz said.

In her research, she’s found that those supports can be “humiliating” because of its inaccessibility.

“(It’s like) ‘Trying to represent yourself is basically like going to the doctor’s office and being told not only that you have to diagnose your health issue, but also that you have to figure out your entire course of treatment,’” Statz recalled someone telling her.

What does Alaska’s community justice worker model do?

The community justice worker (CJW) model in Alaska is rooted in the community health aide/practitioner model that was implemented in 1968. That program sought to equip people with the proper training within communities to provide health care for their communities. Today, around 550 practitioners help with health care needs across 170 rural Alaskan villages through that program.

Advertisement

In 2019, Alaska Legal Services thought of applying a similar model to improve access to legal services. So Alaska Legal Services Corporation, Alaska Pacific University and Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, designed different tools to give specific legal training to people who work at various community-serving organizations.

“It’s really kind of building off an existing infrastructure and capitalizing on the commitment and skills and accessibility of people who are already there,” Statz said. “For example, if someone is already based at a domestic violence shelter, then that person can receive training in how to write an order for protection.”

In November of 2022, the Alaska Supreme Court, with support from the state’s bar association, passed a waiver allowing community justice workers to legally represent clients for some issues in tribal and state courts.

“This is the first in the nation to happen, and it’s just monumental. It’s hard to describe just how revolutionary that is,” Statz said.

Is there a future for CJW in Minnesota?

Advertisement

Statz and her team are seeking to create a community justice worker resource center based in Anchorage to be a hub, along with piloting more CJWs in the cities of Bethel, Alaska and Kodiak, Alaska.

They will also be doing research to find if this solution is working, if it is scalable, and how it could be replicated elsewhere.

There is interest from the tribal and state court judges, along with social service providers, Statz said. Judge Robert Friday, a judge for the 6th Judicial District Court of Minnesota, thinks there are a number of legal areas where the model would make sense to implement.

He sees the value of the model, but believes the areas of law CJWs practice must be those where there are shortages of lawyers — so it doesn’t set a precedent that rural areas and low income communities don’t need access to an attorney. But for areas of law with few lawyers, like public benefits and housing rights, he thinks it could improve outcomes.

“If you look at the areas that the community justice workers are actually trained in (in Alaska), they’re all areas where you’re not building in a new inequity. Family law, for example, isn’t one of the areas,” Friday said.

Advertisement

Heather Lindula said it is her dream to get CJWs in the rural Minnesota. Lindula is the coordinated entry priority list manager for northern St. Louis County and the Northeast MN Continuum of Care, which includes Aitkin, Carlton, Cook, Itasca, Koochiching and Lake counties, where she manages the list for people experiencing homeless to access housing.

She previously worked as a housing advocate at Legal Aid for 11 years. Looking back at the needs of clients there, she said they would have benefited from legal support around notices to vacate, repair issues, lease violations, housing denial for subsidized housing and evictions.

Housing denial was one area where people didn’t know they could appeal the decision.

“They just sort of assumed, ‘If I was denied, I was denied, and there’s nothing I can do.’ Or, ‘If a friend was denied, then I’m not even going to apply because I know that I’ll be denied and can’t get in,’” Lindula said.

Friday thinks a benefit of the model is people are already in the community, which could benefit Indigenous communities in particular.

Advertisement

“If you can have the Indigenous or the Native population have workers that they’re familiar with, that are hopefully also members of their tribe, it would be a game changer,” Friday said. “Just because of the amount of historic distrust there is.”

Some members of the state bar might be resistant to the idea of an unauthorized practice of law waiver, Statz said. But she says the training is “specific and rigorous” — and practitioners would always be working under supervision of an attorney.

“No one’s going to go out there and just go rogue,” she said. “It’s still a process of credentialing and training and supervision. So in that regard, there are a lot of safeguards, and I think that will make it much easier for members of the legal community to understand and appreciate.”

This story was originally published by MinnPost at

www.minnpost.com/greater-minnesota/2023/11/could-a-solution-to-provide-legal-care-in-alaska-work-in-rural-minnesota/.

Advertisement





Source link

Alaska

Mat-Su Initial Attack Responding to Fire in Flat Lake

Published

on

Mat-Su Initial Attack Responding to Fire in Flat Lake


An engine and firefighters from the Division of Forestry & Fire Protection’s Mat-Su Area are responding to a fire near Flat Lake.

A caller reported a fire on an island in Flat Lake, with 2 foot flame lengths and structures near by.

The engine crew responding will be shuttled by boat to the fire. The fire is currently reported as .1 acre, creeping and smoldering.

Advertisement

Additional updates will be shared as they become available.

‹ Pioneer Peak Hotshots, Gannett Glacier Crew Join Fight Against 2 Fires Near Ruby

Categories: Active Wildland Fire

Tags: #FireYear2026 #2026AKFIRESEASON, 2026 Alaska Fire Season



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Alaska

Opinion: Alaska’s $10,000 question: Leave or stay?

Published

on

Opinion: Alaska’s ,000 question: Leave or stay?


A new home under construction in Potter Valley in Anchorage. (Loren Holmes / ADN)

This June, two very different offers reach Alaska families, and both amount to the same thing: $10,000. The difference is everything.

Bill Walker, running for governor, would hand every eligible Alaskan a one-time $10,000 check and then end the Permanent Fund dividend for good. Ask one question: Where does his $10,000 come from?

It comes from the Permanent Fund, the people’s own money and the savings Alaskans built for their children. Walker would spend that endowment once to pay Alaskans to give up the yearly dividend forever.

Think about what that does. It cancels the annual check that gives a family a reason to keep an Alaska address and replaces it with a single payout. You hand people their own savings, call it a gift and cut the tie that held them here in the same motion. It is the oldest mistake in governing money: raid what you have saved to buy a moment’s applause and call the spending generosity.

Advertisement

A plan that spends the people’s savings to send the people away is not bold. It is foolish.

Now consider the other $10,000. Through Alaska Housing Finance Corp., the state offers families up to $10,000 to build a new, energy-efficient home. AHFC raids nothing. It earns its own way. Over the years, it has returned more than $2 billion to the state treasury, and it spends some of that income the way any good business does: to win a customer.

Here, the customer is an Alaskan who wants to own a home, put down roots and stay.

That is the oldest sound move in business: Invest a little of what you earn to bring in someone who stays. The homeowner remains, the community gains a family and the corporation keeps earning. The money spent comes back. A plan that puts earnings to work to bring people home is not charity. It is clever.

Same amount. Opposite source. Opposite wisdom. One spends savings; the other spends earnings. One pays Alaskans to leave; the other pays them to stay. One empties the state; the other fills it.

Advertisement

This Homeownership Month, the choice is the size of a single check, and the whole question is where the check comes from and what it asks of you. Ten thousand dollars of your own fund, to wave you goodbye. Or $10,000, earned and reinvested, to help you stay and build.

Evan Swensen is the publisher of Publication Consultants in Anchorage and the author of “What’s the Money For: A Permanent Fund Mortgage Proposal.”

• • •

The Anchorage Daily News welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Alaska

Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan’s primary challenger who has the same name is eligible for ballot, judge rules

Published

on

Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan’s primary challenger who has the same name is eligible for ballot, judge rules


man with the same name and party affiliation as Alaska Republican U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan is eligible to challenge the senator in the August primary, a judge ruled Friday.

Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews’ ruling overturns a June 15 decision by Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher to disqualify the challenger and keep him off the primary ballot. Matthews’ ruling can be appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Attorneys for the state have said Tuesday is the deadline for a final ruling so that ballots for the Aug. 18 primary can be printed.

The judge ruled that the division’s decision to exclude Dan J. Sullivan because his candidacy was not “in good faith” was not based on the Constitution, Alaska law or the division’s own regulations. The retired teacher from the small fishing community of Petersburg filed to challenge the incumbent.

Advertisement

Dan Sullivan, who has filed to run for U.S. Senate in Alaska, poses for a photo Friday, June 26, 2026, in Petersburg, Alaska.

Katie Holmlund/AP Photo


“Instead, the decision was based upon a new, previously unstated, ‘good faith’ criteria,” the judge wrote.

The division is appealing the decision, Sam Curtis, a spokesperson with the state Department of Law, said by email Saturday. Jeffrey Robinson, an attorney for Dan J. Sullivan, said in an email he expected the division to appeal and couldn’t comment until the Alaska Supreme Court rules on the case.

Advertisement

The controversy over the two Dan Sullivans has underscored the stakes involved in the incumbent’s reelection campaign. The Alaska race is one of about half a dozen U.S. Senate races expected to be highly competitive in the fall, and the seat is one Democrats are trying to flip in their efforts to try to regain the majority. But it’s expected to be an uphill battle in a state that President Trump won by 13 points in 2024.

The senator and allies, including the National Republican Senatorial Committee, have condemned the challenger’s efforts to join the race, arguing his presence could confuse voters. Republican Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom earlier this month opened an investigation into the non-Senator Sullivan’s candidacy.

Under Alaska’s election system, the top four candidates from the primary, regardless of party, move on to the ranked-choice November general election.

The senator has accused the challenger Sullivan of working with Democrats and the campaign of Democratic former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola — who is considered the senator’s main opponent — to cause confusion and boost Peltola’s chances. The sitting senator brought the situation to reporters’ attention at the Capitol earlier this month, accusing Democrats of being “complicit in trying to trick Alaskans” to “rig an election in their favor.” 

Dan Sullivan

Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, speaks to reporters at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., June 30, 2025.

Advertisement

Mark Schiefelbein/AP Photo


Peltola’s campaign and state Democrats have denied the allegation, as has the challenger.

Sen. Sullivan and Peltola are the highest-profile candidates in the crowded race and the only ones to report raising any money.

Beecher has said she determined the challenger Sullivan is not eligible to run because his candidacy was not filed in good faith and instead was done with an intent to confuse voters. She said he had registered to vote as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. and, in conjunction with his candidacy, changed his party affiliation to Republican. She also cited similarities between his campaign website and the senator’s, and his work with a consultant whose clients have included some Democrats. She did not mention finding any evidence of alleged coordination.

In arguing to keep the challenger disqualified, attorneys for the state pushed back on suggestions the ballot could be designed in a way to reduce voter confusion over two candidates with the same name and party running for the same office.

Advertisement

“The Constitution does not require States to place a sham candidate on the ballot and then attempt to mitigate the damage through design choices,” attorney Rachel Witty, with the Alaska Department of Law, and outside attorneys Christopher Murray and Michael Francisco wrote in court filings.

Attorneys for the challenger Sullivan argued that the Constitution lays out three exclusive qualifications for the Senate, addressing only age, citizenship and residency. They said Beecher lacked the legal authority to boot their client off the ballot.

The challenger Sullivan has said that sharing a name and party affiliation with the incumbent gave him “an instant megaphone.” But the 69-year-old retired teacher and former U.S. Forest Service employee said he had considered a run for some time and had grown frustrated with the senator.

He initially was certified on the state’s candidate list as Dan J. Sullivan, with the senator listed as Dan S. Sullivan and identified as the incumbent.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending