the whole thing has this energy:

I really don’t know what caused such a threatening response, but the guy, who gave his name as Doug, beelined right at Bauer.

A supporter of Rep. Nick Begich III gets in the face—which is putting what he’s doing lightly—of local Democratic state candidate Peter Bauer after a closed-door rally with Speaker Mike Johnson. #akelect

This is a mega-dumb, mega-long newsletter at 4,000+ words, so hopefully it makes up for a couple of weeks off. Words like: "It's almost like a Trump-supporting election denier is running the show."

And after an executive session, the APOC commissioners affirm the staff's request for expedited (same-day, I think) consideration of the complaints. They'll wait for a staff investigation that'll be taken up on Aug. 3. Chair Feige says if the investigation gets stonewalled, they can still decide.

Then they're on to the Aurora Action Network, a dark-money group tied to Jeff Yass that's purporting to operate entirely out of the home of right-wing activist Bob Griffin. The attorney for AAN says everything's handled by Alaskans, no one outside. Will he say that under oath? No.

Commissioner Lasota: "No one's trying to impinge upon your ability to get your message out. However, election law requires that all election communications have disclaimers on them, and I've identified at least five videos that do not have disclaimers on them."

Lasota notes that fewer than 500 videos may be "nobody" according to them, but would they resist an order ordering them to remove the offending videos (which sound like shorts). Marcum seems to suggest it's OK, pending resolution.

Richards argues the videos with all the views DO have the appropriate disclosures. The ones without just have a few hundred views, so he says no biggie. "Our elections are not going to be materially impacted by the videos nobody is watching. ... That doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing it right.

Lasota notes that several videos lack disclaimers. Richards argues that they're not actually paid-for-by ads but just volunteers posting stuff without using any resources. Marcum, he says, is a volunteer and has access to the Youtube. Lasota says full access to a YouTube channel isn't nothing.

Commissioner Lasota isn't familiar with Richards (the former AG under Walker, who has since swung far to the right). He asks whether he's an Alaskan and if he's in Alaska. Richards says yes. Lasota: "I'm sure you recognize fellow Alaskans tend to bristle at outside influence in our elections."

Richards, sitting next to Repeal Now's Bethany Marcum (of Alaska Redistricting infamy), continued: "This is the most unprepared I have ever been in a hearing in my life. ... I had time in the 19 hours to read the full complaint."

APOC is currently hearing the latest complaint alleging the latest effort to repeal RCV contains misleading and inaccurate campaign disclaimers (essentially hiding the fact they're primarily funded by billionaire Jeff Yass), and Craig Richards just gave the squeakiest: "THAT'S NOT FAIR!" #akelect

Thanks for following along! I do a newsletter! akmemo.com And a podcast! podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/h... And have a tip jar! www.akmemo.com/tip-jar And, as always, LOOK AT THIS DOG!

Chief Justice Carney wraps up, she says they plan to have out a short order on the decision as quickly as a multi-justice panel can. She says they'll likely have to wait longer for a fully explained argument. (Which is the normal process)

There's some more talk about some legal precedent and other cases. Robinson jokes he's been dreaming about election cases lately. In the case, he says, "This is someone using his God-given name." He says it can be resolved with far less extreme solutions than this.

Justice Oravec seems to have had enough of the mealy-mouthedness about Murray saying the state MUST disqualify. "You control the ballot!"

Justice Pate: "You're making inferences." Murray: "You have to agree with our read of the statutes to get there." Murray says that the whole determination is that the candidate's declaration was not "properly filed." "Properly filed has to meet something!"

Justice Pate also gets in to try to understand what, if any, statutory framework there is for the authority to remove someone from the ballot. Murray basically argues that, sure, it may be "amorphous," but here the state is making the case that, among that amorphousness, sham candidacy is a no-no.

Justice Henderson says the whole problem is that the standards of this Division of Elections are "amorphous." It could allow them to do practically anything they want to do. Murray says the whole intent is that people who want to vote for Sen. Sullivan have a right not to be confused.

Justice Oravec hits the nail on the head: "Where's the statutory authority to divine the intent of a candidate?" She notes that there are a lot of reasons someone might want to run for office, like learning about the process of running, getting name recognition and making a point.

Chief Justice Carney asks what is so self-evident about the effort to confuse? And can't that be fixed another way? Murray says that the evidence is that a real candidate WOULD differentiate themselves, which he reiterates, Petersburg Sullivan didn't. It's a total leap in logic.

And we're underway! Lower 48 Attorney Chris Murray leads off the arguments for the state. He starts off with the fundamental question: "What is the purpose of a ballot?" He says that the whole point is to accurately reflect the public will, and this is "obviously" an effort to confuse voters.

🧵 The Alaska Supreme Court is delayed but should soon be getting underway with oral arguments on the Dan J. Sullivan ballot access lawsuit. Superior Court ruled on Friday that DoE was wrong to block the Petersburg man from challenging U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan. The state appealed. #akleg

Here's how Judge Thomas Matthews viewed the amicus brief filed by perennial candidate Dustin Darden — who may have had to be reminded that amicus status does not let him interject. Darden warned "with no clear rule, every future candidate is at risk of the same treatment." #akelect

Fridays.

Thanks for following along! Write-ups to come. I do a newsletter! akmemo.com And a podcast! podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/h... And have a tip jar! www.akmemo.com/tip-jar And, as always, LOOK AT THIS DOG!

There's some talk in wrap-up about the logistics of the rulings over the weekend. Judge Matthews says he'll hope to have a decision tomorrow, but says that it may be after 4 p.m. 😬 And they talk about the mechanics for staying the Division of Elections' actions.

Worth noting Murray isn't a state attorney but from the conservative First and Fourtheenth law firm, whose accolades literally include: "Obtained a complete dismissal of a sexual misconduct lawsuits against Catholic dioceses, leaders, and schools in California, Kansas, Missouri, and Texas."

Robinson starts out his rebuttal, noting that Judge Matthews' background has an Alaska flag — just like Dan S. and Dan J. Sullivan's campaign websites.