By REP. KEVIN MCCABE AND GARRET NELSON
Feb. 15, 2026 – There is a constant drumbeat in some social media posts to move the capital out of Juneau. Legislators hear it all the time: Alaskans voted to move the capital, the measure passed, and the Legislature ignored them.
That is not what really happened.
Since statehood in 1959, voters have considered at least nine ballot measures to relocate the capital which is more than any other state. At times, they approved studying a move. In 1974, they approved relocating the capital in principle. In 1976, they selected Willow as a site.
Yet on that same ballot, voters passed the FRANK Initiative, Fiscally Responsible Alaskans Needing Knowledge. FRANK requires full disclosure of all direct and indirect costs and voter approval of bonds before any relocation money can be spent. That voter-approved safeguard has been decisive in every move-the-capital discussion.
Every time voters were asked to approve the funding required to make a move happen, they said no. No relocation bond has ever passed.
Juneau’s role as capital predates statehood. After the United States purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867, Sitka served as the territorial seat of government. In 1900, Congress directed that the capital move to Juneau, and by 1906 the relocation was complete. When Alaska became a state in 1959, Juneau had been the capital for half a century, and it remained the capital under the new constitution.
As Anchorage and Fairbanks grew, frustration with Juneau’s location increased. The capital is accessible only by air or water, which makes travel expensive and time-consuming. As the centers of population and economic activity shifted north, debate about the location was inevitable.
The first two post-statehood relocation attempts, in 1960 and 1962, failed.
In 1974, during the oil boom, voters approved, in principle, moving the capital to Western Alaska. Two years later, they selected Willow. After Willow was chosen, Gov. Jay Hammond followed through. A commission was appointed. Plans were developed. Infrastructure needs were identified. Costs were calculated. The state did exactly what voters directed.
Then voters saw the price tag.
In 1978, a bond to fund nearly one billion dollars for Willow failed overwhelmingly. In 1982, when projected costs rose to approximately $2.8 billion, voters were asked again. That measure failed. The no vote also repealed prior relocation laws and effectively ended the Willow plan. The concept had support; the funding did not.
In 1994, voters rejected a proposal to declare Wasilla the capital. On the same ballot, they overwhelmingly reaffirmed FRANK’s cost disclosure and bond requirements.
Then in 2002, voters considered Ballot Measure 2, formally titled the Initiative Petition Moving the Location of Legislative Sessions. It would have required legislative sessions to be held in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, or in Anchorage if facilities were not yet available in the Mat-Su. Voters rejected it decisively, 153,127 no to 74,650 yes, a margin of more than two to one.
The pattern is clear. Alaskans have been willing to explore relocation. They have not been willing to authorize the bonds necessary to pay for it.
Even in recent years, the conversation has taken on new language in some circles. Beyond traditional arguments about access and cost, some advocates now frame relocation in terms of “decolonization” and the symbolic role of Juneau as the seat of government. We recently addressed that historical argument in greater depth in a separate essay which you can read here. The motivations behind calls to move the capital may evolve, and they do not come solely from one political perspective, but the fiscal consequences remain the same.
As co-sponsors in the 34th Legislature of House Bill 3, which would allow regular and special legislative sessions to convene in Anchorage, we support any effort to improve accessibility to lawmakers for Alaskans. HB3 bill reflects ongoing concerns about travel, attendance, and public access, yet it still faces the familiar fiscal hurdles of significant costs.
While official legislative sessions continue to meet in Juneau, some off-site hearings or meetings have been held in Anchorage. Attendance at these events is varied, highlighting a practical reality: moving sessions closer to the population center does not automatically guarantee robust public participation.
Relocation is not simply moving desks. It requires housing, utilities, digital infrastructure, meeting space, hotels, restaurants, and long-term operating commitments. The Legislature employs hundreds, from lawyers to finance staff, all requiring housing or hotels. And the fact that Juneau provides economic stability to Southeast Alaska cannot be ignored. Many Alaskans are also cautious about concentrating political power in the larger cities. These are serious financial and policy considerations.
Despite this long history, we remain committed to finding practical ways to increase public access to government. Through legislation, technology, outreach, and, where appropriate, travel assistance, we will continue working to ensure Alaskans can engage with lawmakers, participate in hearings, and be heard.
Almost since statehood, Alaskans have examined the question of relocation. Yet each time the full financial commitment was placed before them, they declined to fund it. That record is clear. The capital has not remained in Juneau because legislators ignored the voters. It has remained because voters refused to approve the bonds required to move it.
Future arguments may be framed in new ways, whether around cost, access, or decolonization. If voters choose to authorize the funding necessary for relocation, that decision will be respected by the legislature. Until that happens, the constitutional capital remains in Juneau, and our obligation is to make Alaska’s government as accessible, transparent, and accountable as possible for every citizen, in every region of this state.
Rep. Kevin McCabe is an Alaska legislator representing District 30, Big Lake. He has lived in Alaska for 43 years, served in the US Coast Guard, as a Boeing 747 captain, and was a volunteer firefighter. Rep. Garret Nelson represents District 29, Sutton and Interior, and is a businessman.
12 thoughts on “McCabe and Nelson: Alaskans may want to move the capital, but they’ve never approved the funds to do so”
$1 billion? In the late 70’s?
Bwahahahahaha! $2.8 billion?
Seems the price was purposely out of reach!
It was, the commission was made up of entirely anti-move Juneau associated people plus one Valley representative. As I recall the 2.8 billion was more than the entire value of Juneau, public and private, at the time, it was a crock
“………Every time voters were asked to approve the funding required to make a move happen, they said no………..”
Every time voters were asked to approve the funding required to make a move happen, the price was absolutely insane. We know the game.
The purpose of our State Capitol is not to “provide economic security” to the area surrounding it. That is a non consideration. The new legislative buildings might cost a few hundred million. Infrastructure another few. The rest would be done by the private sector.
Minus what a central location would save and the cost is even lower.
Ask Trump to do it.
“……..The new legislative buildings might cost a few hundred million. Infrastructure another few. The rest would be done by the private sector………”
Correct. But you’ll never see that on a ballot initiative requesting voter approval to “move the capitol”. You’ll see cost projections in the billions………just like estimated costs for a gas pipeline from the north slope, roads to Juneau, bridges to Mat-Su, and every other proposal for shiny things that somebody doesn’t want to happen.
You must be really young, right?………………
Liars! McCabe and Nelson It was passed twice for the funds , better do your history lessons,
The cost will not reach into the billions, unless, of course, Juneau insists on constructing an entirely new capital complex from the ground up. Price tags, however, are the preferred instrument of political fear. They are used as weapons.
There are already numerous existing buildings in Anchorage where a new capital could begin its work immediately. Government does not require marble palaces to function; it requires offices, records, and the disciplined execution of law. The notion that relocation demands monumental architecture is a fiction, one designed to inflate projections and paralyze public will.
Politics is not about compromise; it is about the management and perception of fear. Citizens are instructed to tremble at speculative cost estimates, while the same political class displays no hesitation in spending vast sums on projects it favors (Boondoggles). When an expenditure serves entrenched interests, the price becomes “investment.” When it serves structural reform, the price becomes “irresponsibility.”
Alaska is no stranger to historical boondoggles, projects launched with grand rhetoric, defended with urgency(Carbon Sequestration), and quietly absorbed into the permanent ledger of public expense. The irony is stark: the state has repeatedly tolerated waste in the name of development, yet recoils at reform in the name of prudence.
And as far as this citizen is concerned, if funding is required, it can come out of the PFD. The Permanent Fund Dividend exists because Alaska’s natural wealth belongs to its people. If a temporary adjustment is necessary to secure a more accessible and efficient seat of government, one that better serves citizen sovereignty, then let that discussion be honest and direct. Do not hide behind inflated estimates and bureaucratic inertia, Kevin McCabe.
Fear of a price tag is not fiscal responsibility; it is political theater. And theater, however dramatic, is not governance.
Lordy. and we thought only Democrats were this useless
.
Kindly remind again what you boys were hired to do, and why you aren’t doing it.
.
You got Kawasaki’s porno-protection bill to trash, Giessel’s election-cheating lawsuit to crash, Giessels education-industry income-tax bill to kill, gaslighting to get out of the gas-line project,
.
…a forensic audit to conduct on state finances and management practices, a forensic audit to conduct on education-industry finances and management practices, a corrupted election system to fix, a corrupted grand-jury system to fix, an audit of entitlement programs to check for illegal aliens living on welfare, getting PFD’s, and voting
.
…yet there you both sit with your thumbs up your backsides, soaking up your money, sermonizing that the capital can’t be moved from your Holy Party And Per Diem City of Juneau because, apparently, you’re too incompetent to write a bill to make it happen, to impotent, too afraid to repeal FRANK,
.
…too dumb to figure out what the capital move might reasonably cost, too afraid of hiring someone to help figure out in a -transparent- way what the capital move -should- cost,
.
..while lecturing us with your mind-barfing, contemptuous condescension that relocation is not simply moving desks. It requires housing, utilities, digital infrastructure, meeting space, hotels, restaurants, and long-term operating commitments. OMG! Who knew?
.
Sweet Jesus, and you boys are too out of touch to realize your employers just might know this already, and that …somehow… 49 other states have accessible capitals, but we can’t have one, because you gotta have all these things, plus your party house(s), staffed and equipped with everything and everyone it takes to make your world go ’round …out of taxpayers’ sight,
.
,,,plus it’s your holy obligation to make economic stability happen in Southeast Alaska just by being there, which, as you say, cannot be ignored.
.
Remind again why the Legislature absolutely must employ –hundreds– of lawyers (who if current events are any indication, can’t find jobs anywhere else) and finance staff (how’s that budget going again, …still working, are they, on insightful LNG pipe line questions?).
.
And, OMG, who knew they all require housing or hotels?
.
Remind again why “the fact that Juneau provides economic stability to Southeast Alaska cannot be ignored” is somehow Job #1 for you, which those of us who elected you damn sure can’t ignore now, because your boss is about to stiff productive residents with income taxes, sales taxes, and “zeroed-out” PFD’s to make sure government, Juneau’s only cottage industry, “stabilizes” Southeast Alaska because, according to you, Natives, non-Natives, and Sealaska are too dumb to do it themselves?
.
You boys got really noisy when it was all about “Let’s get back to building great big durable things in Alaska” and “Great things are never easy or safe”.
.
Now you get a practical, do-able list of great, big durable things to do which are not easy or safe.
.
And you boys get really quiet.
.
How come?
You must have missed the part where they both co-sponsored the bill to move the session. They are doing the work while you crap all over them. The point is that you have to convince every other Alaskan to vote for this. Because when Alaskan’s had a chance they voted two to one, twice, not to fund the move. Are you that unintelligent that you attack the guys who are trying to help?
Article’s nothing but a litany of lame excuses, half truths, sprinkled over the same worn-out BS about cost.
.
Maybe Alaskans recognized the scam for what it was when they voted against giving the mob a blank check to do basically nothing.
.
Could they have co-sponsored the bill and set it up to fail so it would look to folks back home like they at least tried?
.
No? They just told you why failure’s their only option. They can diddle all they want with oil-company taxes, but can’t repeal FRANK. They have a sacred duty to keep the capital in the Holy Party City of Juneau because it “stabilizes” Southeast Alaska’s economy, which apparently nobody in Southeast, including Sealaska, can do for themselves.
.
Seems noteworthy you don’t have answers either, but it is good of you to carry their water for them, since they apparently can’t.
Thank you for analysis of the article and the excellent reply to ital
We’ve voted a couple of times to move the capital from Juneau – to Willow, where Gove Jay Hammond pitched a tent and camped out. He’s probably rolling in his grave today.
Perhaps we can’t move the entire capital from Juneau but we should move it to Anchorage. This would eliminate over $33,000 in tax free pre diem from the legislators who serve the Valley to Girdwood areas. They could have their meetings in the summer and used the mostly empty dorms at UAA. It would also save the costs of flying everyone to Juneau all the time and would save us the money olf moving the piano from Barrow every year to Barrow and back.
Putting the legislature in Anchorage would make them much more accessible to the bulk of the state’s population that live here and elsewhere.
I don’t think of these clowns as citizen legislators- I think of them as greed mongers who are in it for their own benefit. And since the state doesn’t have any extra money how about some “across the board” pay cuts to those employees earning over $100K per year.
I recently read that Juneau is buying a building with money they don’t have and still plan to do the “new renovations” to it. It sounds to me like a revisit to the “TajMahawker” waste of money in downtown Anchorage which now houses the police department.
I am retired on a very fixed income and wish I could vote myself a pay raise. Sadly the 2% from social security doesn’t go very far with todays prices. I have to make do with what I get and they should have to as well.