The Standard They Never Applied
Carol Hafner is on the 2026 ballot right now. The Division never asked her a single question. Daniel Sullivan got an inquisition.
Carol Hafner is on Alaska's 2026 U.S. Senate ballot right now — filed from South Dakota, mother of a man currently serving a federal prison sentence for threatening public officials. The Division of Elections never filed a complaint against her, never opened an inquiry, never asked a single question about her motives. Compare that to what happened to Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr., an actual Alaska resident, in the very same election cycle.
Exhibit One: Carol Hafner, 2026 — Right Now
Carol “Kitty” Hafner has filed to run for U.S. Senate in Alaska in 2026. She filed from South Dakota. She is the mother of Eric Hafner, who is currently serving a federal prison sentence in New York for threatening public officials, and who is separately running again for Alaska’s U.S. House seat — campaigning, as before, from his cell. Between the two of them, Alaska voters are looking at a Senate candidate who lives in South Dakota and a House candidate who lives in federal prison, both seeking to represent a state neither one has ever called home.
The Division of Elections has filed no complaint against her candidacy. It has opened no inquiry into her motives. It has not asked whether her run is in “good faith.” She simply qualified, under the bare constitutional minimum, and her name sits on the same 2026 ballot as Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr. — the man the Division spent two weeks investigating and ultimately tried to disqualify.
Exhibit Two: Eric Hafner, 2024
This is not a new pattern. In 2024, Eric Hafner finished sixth in Alaska’s U.S. House primary — with 0.4% of the vote — while serving a 20-year federal prison sentence. He had never lived in Alaska. When two higher-finishing Republicans withdrew, Hafner was elevated to the general election ballot under the Division’s own reading of the law.
The Alaska Democratic Party sued to remove him, arguing the U.S. Constitution requires a House member to be an inhabitant of the state “when elected” — something Hafner, with a release date of 2036, could not possibly satisfy. The Division’s own director, Carol Beecher, did not invoke a “good faith” standard to keep him off. She defended his right to stay on. And when the question came up again two years later, the Division’s own attorney admitted under oath exactly how little scrutiny Hafner ever received.
“In the Hafner case, there was no complaint filed prior to the primary on Hafner’s candidacy.” — Chris Murray, attorney for the Alaska Division of Elections, June 25, 2026
No complaint. No investigation. No “good faith” review of a man calling in to campaign from a prison phone. The Alaska Supreme Court agreed, 4–1, in Alaska Democratic Party v. Beecher, and the Superior Court below said the quiet part out loud: ranked-choice voting neutralizes any claim of harm, because every voter can simply rank the candidates they actually want.
Exhibit Three: Daniel Sullivan, 2026
Compare that to what happened to a retired schoolteacher from Petersburg. Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr. — an actual Alaska resident, properly filed, constitutionally qualified in every respect — was investigated by the Division within weeks of filing, after complaints from the Alaska Republican Party and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Director Beecher determined his candidacy was not filed in “good faith” and disqualified him — a standard that appears nowhere in Alaska statute, nowhere in regulation, and nowhere in the Alaska Constitution.
Sullivan’s own attorney drew the comparison directly to the court’s face:
“When would there be a better time… to question the motives of someone’s intent to run for office than a convicted felon living out of state who has no potential to come [to Alaska] and serve?” — Jeffrey Robinson, attorney for Dan J. Sullivan, June 29, 2026
The Pattern
This isn’t a comparison across different years or different administrations. Carol Hafner and Daniel Sullivan are running in the same election, on the same ballot, reviewed by the same Division, in the same matter of weeks. One candidate lives in South Dakota and has a son campaigning from a federal prison cell. The other is a retired Alaska schoolteacher who has lived in Petersburg for years. The Division investigated, disqualified, and fought in court to keep the Alaskan off. It never lifted a finger against the South Dakotan.
The Division’s own attorney admitted there was no complaint, no inquiry, nothing resembling scrutiny in the Hafner case — not in 2024, and not now. Sullivan’s attorney asked the obvious question out loud in front of the Alaska Supreme Court: if “good faith” review is ever appropriate, why does it appear only when the candidate is an actual Alaskan, and never when the candidate is filing from out of state with a felon for a son?
The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s ruling directing the Division to include Sullivan on the ballot, rejecting the “good faith” standard as unsupported by Alaska law.
The Point
A standard that only appears when it’s convenient isn’t a standard. It’s a tool. Alaska voters deserve an elections division that applies the same rule to everyone — whether the candidate is a stranger to the state calling in from a prison phone, or a neighbor down the road whose name happens to match someone already in office. The Constitution sets the bar. It is not the Division’s place to raise it for some candidates and lower it for others depending on who they’d rather see on the ballot.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment