By SUZANNE DOWNING
Oct. 14, 2026 – A former Republican lawmaker, a Democrat lawmaker, and a lawmaker who caucuses with Democrats have joined forces on a proposed Alaska ballot initiative that would require candidates to collect voter signatures and pay higher filing fees before appearing on the ballot.
Jesse Sumner, Zack Fields, and Rebecca Himschoot announced Oct. 13 that they submitted an application for the proposal to the lieutenant governor. Their group, the Stop Election Manipulation Initiative Committee, says the changes would require candidates to demonstrate local support and discourage election gamesmanship.
The proposal would create three signature thresholds:
- Statewide offices: 1,000 qualified Alaska voters for candidates for governor/lieutenant governor, US Senate, and US House.
- State Senate: 100 qualified voters who live in the candidate’s Senate district.
- State House: 50 qualified voters who live in the candidate’s House district.
The measure would also increase filing fees for statewide offices from $100 to $500, and for legislative offices from $30 to $100, according to the committee’s announcement. Sponsors say the additional revenue would help offset the Division of Elections’ costs of validating signatures.
“Voters deserve real competition with serious candidates,” said Fields, the Anchorage Democrat, in a statement.
Sumner, a former Republican legislator from Wasilla and former lieutenant governor candidate, said candidates should have to demonstrate support beyond submitting paperwork and a payment.
“Instead of simply writing a check, candidates should have to speak to voters in their communities and earn their support to get on the ballot,” Sumner said.
Himschoot, a false-flag nonaligned lawmaker from Sitka, described the proposal as a balance between keeping elections accessible and reducing opportunities for manipulation.
“A modest signature requirement fits our open election system by allowing Alaska voters to vet candidates before they appear on the ballot,” she said.
The committee pointed to two concerns: federal candidates with little connection to Alaska, and legislative candidates whose last-minute filings and withdrawals can leave races without meaningful competition.
Its announcement specifically cited incarcerated congressional candidate Eric Hafner, a Democrat, as an example of the first problem. The sponsors argue that requiring signatures from Alaska voters would establish a measure of local support before such candidates could appear on the ballot.
The signature requirement would demonstrate voter support, but could not establish that a candidate lives in Alaska. Nor would collecting signatures establish whether a candidacy is sincere, as in the case of Decoy Dan, the man who is trying to chip away at the reelection of Sen. Dan S. Sullivan. The committee’s argument is that requiring candidates to secure support from actual Alaska voters would make frivolous or tactical filings more difficult.
The proposal also raises constitutional questions, particularly over mandatory filing fees for candidates who cannot afford them.
Courts evaluate ballot-access restrictions under the Anderson-Burdick framework, weighing burdens on voters’ and candidates’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights against the state’s interests in regulating elections. Reasonable, nondiscriminatory requirements can survive that review, including measures intended to prevent overcrowded ballots and ensure candidates demonstrate meaningful support. Severe burdens require narrowly tailored rules serving compelling state interests.
Modest signature requirements are therefore generally permissible, although deadlines and other collection rules apply. The apparent vulnerability would be requiring both signatures and higher fees without providing a reasonable alternative for candidates who are unable to pay.
In Lubin v. Panish (1974), the Supreme Court held that states cannot exclude an indigent candidate solely for inability to pay a filing fee when no reasonable alternative means of ballot access exists. The committee’s announcement does not identify a fee waiver or alternative for those candidates.
An argument that the signature requirement improperly adds qualifications for federal office would face a different hurdle. Although states cannot add eligibility qualifications for Congress, the Supreme Court has distinguished those restrictions from ordinary ballot-access rules requiring candidates to demonstrate community support. A signature requirement would not automatically violate that constitutional prohibition, but in combination with the fee, the initiative will likely end up in court, if approved.
The application is an initial step toward a possible ballot measure. Under Alaska’s initiative process, the lieutenant governor has 60 calendar days after receiving an application to certify it or notify sponsors of the grounds for denial. If certified, the Division of Elections prepares petition booklets, and sponsors must then collect the signatures needed to qualify the initiative for a future election.
13 thoughts on “Sumner, Fields, Himschoot propose signatures and higher fees for Alaska candidates”
Repeal RCV and it will fix this mess, vote yes on 2.
Does it say whether or not the candidates have to collect the signatures themselves or can they pay people to do so? How about sitting members of the AK house and senate running for reelection? This is another solution looking for a problem…..
Exactly Right. Vote yes on 2 and get rid of RCV – problem solved. As you would expect, idiot Democrats trying to add another layer of Government to fix a problem they created.
Demorats supporting each other, I remember when S Kawasaki proposed a legislative pay raise, filling current legislature reps pockets, and stating “It will help those running for office to afford running for office!”
So glad that one failed miserably. I might have been born at night, but it wasn’t last night.
Vote YES on 2 and 3, and if you’re running for an office, you need to “LIVE” in the district or state you are running for office for, PERIOD.
“……..Statewide offices: 1,000 qualified Alaska voters for candidates for governor/lieutenant governor, US Senate, and US House.
State Senate: 100 qualified voters who live in the candidate’s Senate district.
State House: 50 qualified voters who live in the candidate’s House district.er L………”
Amber Lee could get enough corpses to fulfill those requirements. This is some sort of game.
Its ” I got mine!” Pulling the ladder up behind them
Quite the contrary, a YES vote on 2 will not solve the problem. It will actually exacerbate it. YES on 2 reinstates access to the November ballot as it existed before the open primary/ranked-choice vote. That means candidates can bypass the primaries and petition onto the November ballot as independents (so long as they didn’t appear as candidates in the primary). The barriers to entry were relatively low under the former law, and mischief was rampant. Minor candidates drained votes from major competitors. That matters in Alaska, where elections can be won or lost by 500 votes. Ranked choice counters vote-draining. I think the legislators are onto something: deterring mischief candidates while still making it possible for Lisa Murkowski to go head to head against Mike Dunleavy in 2028 if she chooses not to compete in a closed primary. If successful she would still be a member on good standing of the Senate Republican Caucus.
Respectfully Nate I disagree, returning to the previous primary system would once again give Alaskans the opportunity to decide, who they want to represent them in the general by eliminating fake republicans like Decoy Dan and Ruby Jones during the primary process. In the vast majority of cases write in candidates or petition candidates do not garner a lot of support and have always been rare. The notable exception was the write-in candidacy of Lisa Murkowski, after she lost the primary to Joe Miller, but it is far from the norm and I have my doubts she could pull that off another time.
I dispute your claim that “mischief was rampant” under the previous primary system, especially considering that with the current system absolutely no vetting is done for candidates wishing to run for office and voting is diluted considerably with high numbers of candidates competing for one office. The legislators in my opinion are simply placing another hurdle in place for candidates, who are not supported by a major network of PACs and other groups, stacking the deck in the favor of their ideology.
They are obviously trying to disenfranchise black candidates…..
Only those who can’t get a photo ID. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Yes. As well as Wiccans.
> Their group, the Stop Election Manipulation Initiative Committee, says the changes would require candidates to demonstrate local support and discourage election gamesmanship.
Oh that was a good laugh, as I remember Decoy Dan.
Alaska’s ballot belongs to the people. Those seeking to regulate access to it should remember Article I, Section 2 of our Constitution: “All political power is inherent in the people.”
A reasonable signature requirement may demonstrate public support. But requiring those signatures AND a higher filing fee raises another question: Where is the protection for a qualified citizen who has the support but cannot afford the price of admission?
In Lubin v. Panish (1974), the United States Supreme Court rejected excluding an indigent candidate through a mandatory filing fee without a reasonable alternative. A wealthy political prankster can write a check. A working Alaskan with sincere convictions may struggle to do so. Money does not establish integrity, competence, or fidelity to an oath.
Alaska has its own warning in Vogler v. Miller (1982), where our Supreme Court struck down an increased signature burden that the State failed to justify. Calling a restriction “election integrity” does not relieve its sponsors of their duty to justify it.
Before asking Alaskans to approve this proposal, publish the complete language. Show us the fee waiver, the time allowed to gather signatures, the rules for rejecting them, and whether incumbents face exactly the same requirements as their challengers.
“Serious candidates”? Let the voters judge seriousness. Government may establish reasonable ballot procedures, but it must protect the people’s opportunity to challenge those who govern them.
Liberty requires an open door to public service. Every added barrier deserves scrutiny—especially when proposed by people who have already passed through that door. “Liberty Ed”
The question about RCV boils down to a simple issue:
Do you want to know who won the night of or the day after the election or are you okay to wait until all the math gymnastics are done weeks later?