Former Rep. Mary Peltola on Monday announced her intent to run for a U.S. Senate seat to represent Alaska, in a race to unseat two-term GOP Sen. Dan Sullivan.
In a two-minute video, Peltola cited “scarcity” and inflation as problems Alaskans currently face.
“Growing up, Alaska was a place of abundance. Now, we have scarcity,” Peltola said. “The salmon, large game, and migratory birds that used to fill our freezers are harder to find. So we buy more groceries, with crushing prices.”
ALASKA NATIVES DEFY DEMOCRATS, CHAMPION PUSH TO REVIVE ARCTIC DRILLING THAT BIDEN SHUT DOWN
Advertisement
Former Rep. Mary Peltola, D-Alaska, on Monday announced that she will seek to unseat Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan. (Jabin Botsford/Washington Post via Getty Images)
Peltola previously served in the House as Alaska’s lone representative. She won a special 2022 election and full term later that same year in which she defeated four other candidates, including former Gov. Sarah Palin.
She lost her House seat in 2024 to Republican challenger Nick Begich III.
Peltola pointed to the state’s two late Republicans as examples of what happened to lawmakers with agendas in Washington who put politics over the needs of the state.
“Our delegation used to stand up to their party and put Alaska first,” Peltola said. “Ted Stevens and Don Young ignored Lower 48 partisanship to fight for things like public media and disaster relief because Alaska depends on them.”
Advertisement
TRUMP ADMIN ANNOUNCES BIG STEP TOWARD ‘ENERGY DOMINANCE’ WITH MASSIVE ALASKA LNG PROJECT ALLIANCE
Rep. Nick Begich, photographed at the Resource Industry Trade Organizations Host Congressional Candidate Forum. (Ash Adams/Washington Post via Getty Images)
“Ted Stevens often said, ‘to hell with politics, put Alaska first’,” she added. “It’s about time Alaskans teach the rest of the country what Alaska First and, really, America First looks like.”
Peltola’s announcement comes as Democrats are getting ready to try and take back both chambers of Congress in November’s midterm elections.
In a video last month posted online by the Democratic-aligned super PAC Senate Majority PAC, the group chided Sullivan for voting for higher costs for health care and other essentials.
Advertisement
In response, Sullivan, while standing on skis, boasted about tax cuts and railed about Democrats and the Biden administration for policies he said didn’t benefit Alaska.
Two-term Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Ak., at the US Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 9, 2025.(Allison Robbert/AFP via Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“They want what Democrats always want when they’re in charge in D.C.,” Sullivan said, referring to at least 70 executive orders signed by Biden that he said negatively impacted Alaska.
According to the New York Times, 300 individual billionaires spent more than $3 billion during the 2024 election cycle. Keep those figures in mind as you consider Initiative 194 and its potential impact on Montana values.
The Montana Chamber of Commerce, the Kalispell Chamber of Commerce and the Billings Chamber of Commerce have taken a clear and united stand against I-194. We believe Montanans deserve a full and transparent explanation of why.
Advertisement
No doubt, I-194 would prohibit Montana businesses and nonprofits from participating in the political process. Under this initiative, family-owned businesses including farms, ranches, restaurants and retail stores could not respond publicly to a ballot initiative targeting them. A Main Street restaurant could not support a local levy to improve public safety. A small business coalition could not push back against misleading claims that threaten their livelihoods and their employees’ jobs. These are not hypothetical concerns; they are the everyday realities of how Montana businesses engage in the civic life of our communities.
But make no mistake, I-194 does not remove big money from our politics.
While cleverly named “The Montana Plan,” I-194 should be called the “California Plan” since California is home to more than 200 individual billionaires and places no restrictions whatsoever on out-of-state wealthy individuals. Under I-194, a single well-funded outsider could bankroll a campaign to devastate a Montana agricultural practice, a logging operation or a ranching family, while the Montana businesses under attack would be legally silenced. That is not campaign finance reform. That is a one-sided disarmament of Montana’s own voices.
The supporters of I-194 like to reference the Copper King’s influence that occurred at the beginning of the 20th century. And while this initiative would have prohibited the Anaconda Copper Company from supporting candidates, the actual individual Kings of copper — the millionaires that owned those companies — would have still been free to bankroll their preferred candidates, while the rest of Montana’s small business community sat in silence. They would have loved this proposal.
Montana has a proud history of fighting outside influence in our politics, from the battles against the Copper Kings to the Corrupt Practices Act of 1912. But that Act targeted corruption and covert control of government, not the right of businesses and community organizations to have an open voice in the state they call home. There is a meaningful difference between a corporation secretly buying a legislator and a chamber of commerce publicly advocating for its members.
Advertisement
We raised constitutional and legal questions about I-194’s scope before the Montana Supreme Court because those questions deserved an answer. We respect the court’s ruling. And now we are doing exactly what any organization or individual is entitled to do: making our case openly, with our names attached and letting Montanans decide.
That is what chambers of commerce do. We advocate for Montana’s businesses and workers — the coffee shops, hardware stores, family farms, and yes, the larger employers whose presence helps keep smaller businesses alive. We are Montanans representing Montana’s economic engine.
We agree that Montanans deserve a political system where their voices matter more than outside money. Silencing Montana businesses while leaving out-of-state billionaires free to spend without restriction does not achieve that goal. It simply changes who gets silenced.
We urge every Montanan to read I-194 carefully — all of it — and ask: Does this make our democracy stronger, or does it make some voices louder by making others disappear?
Montana Chamber of Commerce, Kalispell Chamber of Commerce and Billings Chamber of Commerce.
Early voting for the 2026 Nevada Primary Election starts on Saturday and runs until June 5.
There are several polling locations throughout the state, and to find the nearest one to you, click here.
“Early voting is the same as Election Day,” said George Guthrie, Public Information Officer, Washoe County of Registrar of Voters Office. “The only difference is that early voting a lot of times is a lot more convenient.”
Advertisement
If you are planning to head out to vote, here is everything you need to know.
You should check your voter registration before you head to a polling location, but if not, there is no need to sweat.
“Nevada’s really accessible when it comes to registering to vote,” Guthrie said. “If you’re not registered and you just want to walk into a vote center one day and vote, you absolutely can do that.”
Guthrie suggests bring a proof of identification and a proof of residence because the county will need that information to figure out which local races you can vote in based on where you live.
For nonpartisan voters, if you’ve received your mail-in ballot, you probably noticed the choices are limited.
Advertisement
Nevada runs closed primaries, meaning that you can only participate in primary elections for the party you are registered.
However, if you are a nonpartisan, you can change your party registration if you would like to vote in either the Republican or Democratic races, but you can’t vote in both.
Once your registration is good to go, you’ll get your voter card, and make your selections on the tablet.
It may look very similar to the last election cycle, but there is one notable difference.
“You’re still going to make your choices on the tablet, but instead of those votes being on that little receipt in that little box that you take a look at and you’re kind of wondering, okay, okay, verifying your votes. Okay, I see it. Now, when you vote on that, you’re going to be printing out a full length ballot,” Guthrie said.
Advertisement
After your ballot is printed, make sure you put it in the scanner before you go. If you leave the voting center or polling location with that ballot, your vote will not count and you won’t be able to try again.
One way to skip the line, is filling out your mail-in ballot and then dropping it off at a drop box location.
You also don’t have to leave the comfort of your own home with your mail-in ballot, but you should send that sooner rather than later.
“Every mail ballot has to be verified by the signature,” Guthrie said. “Your signature has to match your record, and sometimes people aren’t as careful with their signatures as they need to be, and it doesn’t match. And if you send in the ballot way too late, you know on Election Day you’ve only got a very short window to contact our office.”
Signature cures must be submitted by 5 p.m. on June 15, six days after the Primary Election June 9.
Two years of probation for groping, three years of probation for rape.
That appears to be the standard punishment for prison guards who sexually assault inmates at the state women’s prison in Cibola County.
New Mexico law, like those of most states, recognizes prisoners are legally incapable of consenting to sex with prison staff and calls for more severe penalties for offenders who rape someone over whom they have authority. But court records reveal guards who raped women under their supervision at Western New Mexico Correctional Facility near Grants in recent years received plea deals that didn’t require them to serve any jail time or register as sex offenders.
Advertisement
Several women are suing the state Corrections Department, alleging the agency’s “actions and inactions” have created an environment in which corrections officers are allowed to abuse their positions of authority unchecked, while inmates are punished and retaliated against for reporting guards’ abuse.
The New Mexican is not naming the women because they are victims of sexual assault.
Five former employees of the prison have pleaded guilty to committing sex crimes against women under their supervision at the facility since 2022. In four of the cases, the defendants pleaded guilty to rape. All five got probation as part of plea deals that didn’t include any enhanced punishment or acknowledgment of the fact their victims were inmates.
Local prosecutors say there are a lot of reasons for that.
“Justice does not always look the same for every case or for every victim. Sometimes justice means prison, sometimes it just means the abuse stops, and sometimes justice is a monetary resolution that is achieved through civil courts,” Chief Deputy District Attorney Jessica Martinez wrote in an email.
Advertisement
Martinez said victims in all the cases were supportive of the pleas offered, but an attorney who represents three of the victims said that is not entirely true.
Corrections Department spokesperson Brittany Roembach declined to comment specifically on the individual cases, citing the pending litigation, but said the department continuously reviews security measures and is “always looking for opportunities to strengthen safety and accountability for everyone in our facilities.”
Probation, clean records
Defense attorney Chandler Blair represented four of the five defendants. He didn’t respond to a call seeking comment Friday.
Robert Smith, 42, told New Mexico State Police he developed “an attraction” to an inmate he later admitted he had raped in 2022. He said he began bringing gifts, including food and cigarettes, into the facility for her and her cellmates. He admitted having sex with her twice, once under a stairway out of the view of security cameras.
Advertisement
Smith was initially charged with two counts of second-degree criminal sexual penetration and one count of bringing contraband into a prison, a third-degree felony. He faced a potential 21 years in prison. But instead, he pleaded guilty to one count of third-degree sexual penetration in a deal that included three years of probation. He also was granted a conditional discharge, meaning he no longer would have a felony record after completing his probation.
The woman filed a lawsuit in 2023, alleging Smith used contraband to bribe her into performing sex acts and threatened to ensure she would lose her job in the facility if she did not comply. Ultimately, her lawsuit said, she was punished for her “purported ‘role’ “ in Smith’s misconduct by being fired from her prison job.
Martinez said in an interview the District Attorney’s Office agreed to the deal because the victim didn’t want to go to trial.
Meanwhile, Dale Clemons, 30, was charged with three counts of second-degree criminal sexual penetration in 2022 after cigarettes were found in the pod where his victim was housed. The woman told officers Clemons assaulted her three times and offered to bring her cigarettes after the first incident.
Clemons’ initial charges carried a potential penalty of 27 years in prison; he pleaded guilty in 2023 to one count of third-degree criminal sexual penetration as part of a deal with prosecutors and also was granted a conditional discharge.
Advertisement
Owen Etsitty, 21, was charged with two counts of criminal sexual penetration in 2023 after an inmate told police he’d raped her in a bathroom. Etsitty, who claimed the woman told him she had “feelings” for him, initially faced 18 years in prison. But after pleading guilty to a single count of third-degree sexual penetration, he, too, was sentenced to three years of probation with a conditional discharge.
George Gonzales, 51 — who, according to his victim’s lawsuit, kept his corrections officer job even after disclosing he had faced sexual harassment accusations in a previous Corrections Department position — was charged initially with four counts of second-degree criminal sexual penetration and one count of bringing contraband into a prison, a third-degree felony.
His victim said Gonzales offered her drugs in exchange for sex in October 2023. The woman’s lawsuit says she felt she had no choice but to agree, resulting in failed drug tests, loss of good time, solitary confinement and “repeated sexual assaults/rape” by Gonzales. The abuse culminated in her hospitalization from a reaction to methamphetamine he provided, court records said.
The woman told state police Gonzales brought extra drugs for her to sell to other inmates. Gonzales kept all the profit, which she estimated to be about $2,500 per day, she said.
Initial charges exposed Gonzales to 39 years in prison. He pleaded guilty in 2024 to one count of third-degree criminal sexual penetration in exchange for three years of probation. Like the others, Gonzales was given a conditional discharge. His plea deal warns that if he violates his probation, he could be subject to jail time and sex offender registration.
Advertisement
Court records show he’s been accused of violating his probation several times. None of the enhanced penalties has been imposed.
Elijah Williams, 22, pleaded guilty to four counts of criminal sexual contact in December, admitting to inappropriate contact with four inmates between January and March of 2025.
Elijah Williams
Advertisement
Courtesy New Mexico State Police
He was also charged with battery after being accused of grabbing one woman by the hair and putting her in a chokehold while trying to push her head toward his genitals. But that charge was dismissed as part of the plea deal Williams struck with state police, which calls for him to serve two years of probation.
Several of the women reported Williams touched them in areas outside the view of cameras. Two have since filed lawsuits against the state.
“Plea agreements are a normal part of the criminal justice process,” New Mexico State Police spokesperson Ricardo Breceda wrote in a recent email in reference to the plea.
Advertisement
DA explanations
Martinez said all the victims were “supportive” of the pleas. In fact, she wrote, their wishes to hold the prison financially accountable in civil suits played a significant role in how the state handled the criminal cases.
“The victims were able to use the guilty plea to advance their civil cases. We made sure to only accept guilty pleas, and not ‘no contest’ or ‘Alford’ pleas, which are not useable the same way as a guilty plea,” she wrote.
The women’s desires to avoid testifying also figured prominently, Martinez said.
“Every victim deserves to be believed, but all victims in all of our cases undergo credibility attacks,” she wrote. “For many victims, particularly those of any type of sexual assault, having to relive their abuse over and over through the criminal process is traumatic and many would prefer to avoid testifying and cross examination.”
Advertisement
It’s not unusual for prosecutors to offer plea deals to reduced charges to defendants with no criminal history, Martinez added.
Attorney Nicole Moss, who represents three women who have filed lawsuits after being sexually assaulted at the prison, disputed Martinez’s explanations.
Female inmates at Western New Mexico Correctional Facility near Grants.
Advertisement
New Mexico Correction Department Facebook page
“This sounds like classic victim blaming, especially in this context where the power dynamic between these men and these women is so extreme,” Moss said in an interview. “These women are completely victimized and vulnerable and have really no opportunity to consent because consent is not even an option.”
Moss provided emails between her and Deputy District Attorney J. Michael Thomas — who handled all of the pleas involving the District Attorney’s Office — showing her client expressly opposed a conditional discharge for Gonzales.
“While she understands the value in a negotiated agreement before trial, she also believes that a conviction to a sex offense should remain on his record permanently and that he is required to register as a sex offender for the remainder of his life,” Moss wrote in an email prior to the plea.
Advertisement
Thomas responded he still intended to extend the proposed plea but would let the court know of the woman’s opposition.
Moss also represents two of Williams’ four victims and said in an interview state police never contacted one of the women — who filed a lawsuit in April — prior to offering him a deal.
“She didn’t even know he’d been convicted until I told her, and she started crying and was upset at the result,” Moss said.
“I think that victims should always have the right to be heard, but that didn’t happen in a criminal case, and, unfortunately, the resolution is one that we didn’t feel is appropriate, so now she’s going to be pursuing some measure of justice through the civil matter,” Moss added.
Moss said the Corrections Department can and should do more to protect inmates from assault by guards, like fixing surveillance system “blind spots.”
Advertisement
“Everybody knows where those blind spots are,” she said.
Moss said she believes there are some “really good people” working at the agency.
“Unfortunately, it also seems like the controlled environment of the prison system also attracts a fairly large number of perpetrators who seek out these opportunities to be in positions of power over vulnerable women,” she said. “I think that the Corrections Department needs to do a better job of trying to screen those people out, and to supervise them.”
