State review flags possible disclosure problems for 91 of 130 Alaska candidates

By SUZANNE DOWNING

Sept. 7, 2026 — A Department of Law review of financial disclosure records has identified potential discrepancies involving 91 of the 130 candidates examined, a finding that helped persuade Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom to reverse her earlier decision to remove two candidates from Alaska’s general-election ballot.

Gov. Mike Dunleavy, Dahlstrom and the governor’s chief counsel, Steve Cox, explained the extraordinary sequence of events during a Monday press conference. They described a state election system that came within days of excluding candidates based on disclosure standards that may not have been applied consistently across the field.

The controversy began when the Alaska Public Offices Commission recommended that three candidates not be certified because their Public Official Financial Disclosure statements did not substantially comply with state law.

The three were gubernatorial candidate Treg Taylor, House District 22 candidate Jose Tagle and Dean Hickel, who did not advance to the general election final four. The recommendations against Taylor and Tagle, however, threatened to remove two candidates who had advanced from the Aug. 18 primary.

On Aug. 31, Dahlstrom announced that she would follow APOC’s recommendation and refuse to certify Taylor and Tagle.

That decision set off immediate questions about whether other candidates had submitted incomplete or inaccurate disclosure forms but had not received the same level of scrutiny.

The Department of Law then began an expedited review to determine how much legal exposure the state might face if it removed Taylor and Tagle while allowing other candidates with potentially similar disclosure problems to remain on the ballot.

According to a document released by the state, attorneys were not conducting a formal APOC investigation. They were performing a high-level legal-risk review in anticipation of possible litigation.

The findings were striking: State officials said 91 of 130 candidates reviewed had at least one potential discrepancy between their POFD filing and information found in public or investigative databases.

Yet APOC had recommended the ultimate election penalty — removal from the ballot — for only three.

Law Department staff examined local property records, the Department of Commerce business and corporate registry and TLOxp, a proprietary investigative database available to government agencies. They compared those records with candidates’ disclosure statements.

The department’s preliminary spreadsheet reaches across party lines and includes candidates for governor, lieutenant governor, state Senate and state House.

Among the examples flagged for possible further review:

• Republican gubernatorial candidate Dave Bronson was listed as having possible undisclosed business, nonprofit and property interests.
• Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins was identified as possibly having an interest in a Sitka property and roles involving Borealis LLC and the nonprofit Outer Coast that may not have been fully reflected on his disclosure.
• Republican House candidate Julie Coulombe was flagged for questions involving the way real property was identified and whether her spouse’s full name was included.
• Democratic Rep. Bryce Edgmon was flagged for a possible undisclosed corporate role and questions involving rental property and tenant income.
• Democratic Rep. Andrew Gray disclosed a loan associated with his residence but apparently did not separately identify the residence as a real-property interest. Gray is one of a few Democrats who are trying to get the Department of Law to prosecute Treg Taylor.
• Democratic House candidate Cliff Groh was flagged because reviewers said they could not locate a 2026 POFD in APOC’s online reports.
• Republican former Rep. Liz Vazquez was flagged for possible business and property interests that may not have been disclosed.

Other entries raise questions about rental income without corresponding property disclosures, property records that do not appear on candidates’ forms, corporate positions, nonprofit board memberships, possible additional employers and forms that may contain information from the wrong reporting year.

Democrat lawmaker asks Alaska Department of Law to prosecute Treg and Jodi Taylor over financial disclosures

The Department of Law repeatedly cautioned that the work was preliminary, incomplete and performed under extreme time pressure. Candidates were not contacted and given an opportunity to explain the apparent inconsistencies. Some records may involve people with similar names, outdated corporate listings, properties sold before the reporting period or database errors.

“The spreadsheet is not a finding of wrongdoing and should not be taken as such,” the department said in its FAQ.

The review also did not determine whether candidates intentionally withheld information. Formal findings would require notice to each candidate, an opportunity to respond and a more complete APOC investigation.

But the sheer number of possible discrepancies created a legal problem for the state. Removing Taylor and Tagle while scores of other candidates remained on the ballot despite potentially incomplete filings could expose Alaska to claims of selective or unequal enforcement.

The department sent a working draft of its findings to APOC on Thursday, Sept. 3, giving the commission an opportunity to reconsider its recommendations. APOC did not take further action before the Division of Elections’ deadline for finalizing the ballot.

Late Friday, Dahlstrom reversed her decision and announced that Taylor and Tagle would be certified.

Taylor was restored to the governor’s race with his original running mate, Candi English. Tagle was returned to the House District 22 contest, where he is challenging Democratic Rep. Ted Eischeid.

Suzanne Downing: Alaska’s election system has become a national embarrassment

Breaking: Dahlstrom reverses course, puts Treg Taylor back on governor’s ballot

The episode has also exposed a broader question about APOC’s administration of Alaska’s disclosure law. Under 2 AAC 50.850, the commission may recommend that a candidate not be certified if the candidate fails to disclose required information involving a significant source of income, real property, a business interest, a loan or another reportable financial interest.

But according to the Department of Law’s FAQ, APOC regulations generally contemplate fines for disclosure violations at this point in the election cycle. Removal from the ballot is an extremely consequential penalty, affecting not only the candidate but also voters who supported that candidate in the primary.

The Division of Elections calendar lists Aug. 31 as the general-election candidate withdrawal deadline. The ballot-finalization process has also passed the point at which ordinary administrative changes can be made.

That means another reversal is now unlikely without judicial intervention. A lawsuit could ask a court to order the Division of Elections to change the ballot, with any emergency appeal potentially reaching the Alaska Supreme Court. As of publication, however, no lawsuit challenging Dahlstrom’s latest certification decision had been filed.

APOC may still investigate the potential discrepancies, and candidates or members of the public may file complaints. Candidates identified in the spreadsheet will also have the opportunity to provide records or explanations that could resolve the questions.

For now, the preliminary review has done something APOC’s original process did not: It placed the filings of the broader candidate field under the same initial lens. The results suggest that incomplete or inconsistent disclosures may be widespread — and that imposing the most severe possible penalty on only a few candidates would have been difficult for the state to defend.