Connect with us

Alaska

Homer legislator apologizes for suggesting Alaska Native justice advocates exclude white women

Published

on

Homer legislator apologizes for suggesting Alaska Native justice advocates exclude white women


JUNEAU — A Homer state legislator apologized Monday on the House floor for suggesting last week that Alaska Native justice advocates exclude white women.

Rep. Sarah Vance, a Republican, made the comments during a House Tribal Affairs Committee hearing last Wednesday about the disproportionate rates of domestic and sexual violence experienced by Alaska Native women in rural Alaska. Advocates flew into Juneau last week to encourage lawmakers to address the state’s crisis of missing and murdered Indigenous people.

“What I hear in this committee is that Alaska Native women feel that it’s exclusive to your experience. Because it sounds exactly what I have heard of white women in my community. It’s the same thing,” Vance said last Wednesday. “But what I continue to hear in this committee over and over again, as if you’re the only one. And I know that’s not your heart.”

Advertisement

Rep. CJ McCormick, a Bethel Democrat and a member of the GOP-led majority caucus alongside Vance, responded last Wednesday that he was “at a loss for words” after hearing her comments.

On Monday, McCormick said that he and Vance had spoken, and that he better understood where she was coming from. But it was hard to hear those comments after the committee had heard more than an hour of “powerful, and very personal testimony” about the public safety crisis facing Alaska Natives, and the challenges to seek justice in rural Alaska, he said.

Members of the Alaska Native Justice Network told the committee that in 2020, Alaska Native women were 10 times more likely to be killed by men than white women. More than half of Alaska Native women reported having experienced sexual violence at some point in their lives.

The Alaska Beacon reported that Department of Public Safety Commissioner James Cockrell told lawmakers last Tuesday that it was “shameful” rural Alaska had received disproportionately less law enforcement resources since statehood.

“We’ve closed our eyes and allowed rural Alaska to be seriously victimized,” he said.

Advertisement

Vance, who has championed for lawmakers to address human and sex trafficking in Alaska, noted in her comments the “incredible gap” Alaska Native women experience in accessing resources for justice. But she encouraged Indigenous advocates to remember that they have “white sisters who are going through the same thing.”

“There’s clearly a mass of Alaskan Native women who have been abused at very high rates. But I can tell you, there are innumerable white women who have the same internal experience of the trauma that Native women have expressed,” she said last Wednesday.

• • •

[Watch the remarks:]

• • •

Advertisement

Fairbanks Democratic Rep. Ashley Carrick said after Vance’s comments, that as a white woman, it hurt her heart to hear about the disparities facing Alaska Native women.

“And while the suffering is the same for victims, the causes of that violence are not the same. And the response to that violence is not the same. And the justice for the victims is not the same,” she said.

Five days after the committee hearing, Vance apologized on the House floor on Monday for comments she said were “less than gracious,” adding, “What I should have said is that evil does not discriminate.”

“When we talk about sexual violence and justice, it’s messy and dirty, and my words created offense,” Vance said. “It is not my heart or my intention to ever create an offense, especially on such a deeply important topic to Alaskans. I in no way want to dishonor the voice of the victims of sexual violence, or the Alaska Native voice, who has been crying out for justice for so long.”

At around the same time as Vance apologized on the House floor, the Democrat-dominated House minority caucus issued a prepared statement to the media, demanding that she apologize for the comments they described as “appalling.”

Advertisement

Vance said Monday evening that her apology was a sincere attempt to bring healing, but she said the House minority had chosen to politicize her comments, which she said was “disgusting.”

Fairbanks Democratic Rep. Maxine Dibert, the only Alaska Native woman currently serving in the Legislature, said in a brief interview earlier in the day that she had been “very hurt” by Vance’s comments. She said she appreciated Vance’s apology, but she wished it had been made to her in private first.

Dibert said that violence against anyone is horrible, but the disproportional rates of violence experienced by Alaska Natives makes the situation unique.

Carrick said by phone that she appreciated Vance’s humility in apologizing, but she said that “there’s a deep need to acknowledge the continuing disparity around missing and murdered Indigenous persons in Alaska.”

• • •

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

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