ANCHORAGE, Alaska (KTUU) – Rep. Mary Peltola and the Alaska Teamster Union Local 959 emphasized their disapproval of the ongoing merger of major grocery retailers Albertson and Kroger on Thursday at the Anchorage Teamsters Office.
As part of finalizing the merger, Kroger Company and Albertson, Inc. plan to divest hundreds of stores — including 14 in Alaska — to C&S Wholesale Grocers, LLC. As a result, Peltola cited at the roundtable that as many as six grocery stores in Alaska could close and called the merger “no laughing matter” and “a serious issue.” In addition to the congresswoman and union members, several Alaska legislators in attendance agreed that the merger is a real issue.
“The more power and the more consolidated they are the more challenging it is [to negotiate fair wages],” Peltola said. “And we see that with every sector but certainly the grocery sector is no different and so that is a real clear threat and I think one we should be speaking to and making sure … that wages won’t go down, that sick leave, things like that, the benefits that are negotiated, aren’t diminished.”
Peltola’s other concerns are with grocery prices, stores being at reasonable distances and keeping shelves stocked. Meanwhile, Kroger has said the merger would lead to lower prices and more choices for fresh food for customers.
Advertisement
“This is something that’s going to affect all of us one way or another, with what we can buy at the grocery stores, what we have access to, and a huge part of food security,” said Patrick Fitzgerald, the Alaska Teamsters Local 959′s political coordinator. “I mean, it’s going to affect our whole way of life no matter how it comes down.”
Frank Mutchie, the president of the Alaska UFCW Local 1496, was mainly concerned for his members, the vast majority of whom work for one of the two retailers.
“This mega-merger, or so call it, affects everyone throughout the state,” Mutchie said.
Another representative for union members spoke about working in retail for 20 years, saying that without the job and its benefits, “my children and myself would have never had the future that we have.”
Albertson-Kroger and the representatives at local Safeway, Carrs and Fred Meyers did immediately respond to requests for comment.
Advertisement
Previously, Fred Meyer & QFC Corporate Affairs Manager Tiffany Sanders wrote that the company believes the divestment would not bring about some of the fears held by Alaskans.
“We are confident C&S’s experienced, purpose-driven leadership team and more than 100-year history of food industry experience will enhance the competitive marketplace,” she said. “Importantly, C&S agreed to honor all collective bargaining agreements, securing the future of good-paying union jobs and protecting associates’ industry-leading health care and pension benefits as well as bargained-for wages.”
The specific store locations in Alaska that will be divested still have not been announced.
“Because we are still in the regulatory process, we are not in a position at this time to share the specific locations that will be divested to continue serving the community under a different owner. We anticipate being able to share these details closer to closing,” Sanders said.
At the end of the roundtable, Peltola maintained once the merger is done, there would be no do-over. She encouraged Alaskans to submit letters with concerns to the Federal Trade Commission.
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.
A 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.”
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.
