A revealing exchange between Alaska Attorney General Stephen Cox and former Alaskan Independence Party (AIP) Chairman Bob Bird, sheds light on the abrupt and controversial dissolution of the state’s third largest political party.
Back on Dec. 31, 2025, the AIP publicly announced that its governing board had voted to disband the 19,000-member party, which formed in the early 1980s. Citing apathetic membership and ongoing confusion about its mission, the AIP board claimed the party was “spiritually dead.”
The decision came as a shock to many long-time members, including Bird, who questioned the clandestine way in which the party was dissolved and whether it was even legal.
Over the past several years the AIP endured an internal struggle over its direction and leadership. In 2024, a small group of AIP members voted to replace then-Chairman Bird with longtime member Bob Wayne Howe, claiming it was time to expand membership and endorse candidates who were firmly committed to the party’s core goals.
Bird had led the party since 2020, orchestrating renewed interest across the state. When he was replaced, party leaders claimed the change was motivated, in part, by a desire to focus on growing the party’s membership and returning to its core values. That never materialized, and late last year the new leaders decided to kill the party.
Bird then wrote to Attorney Gen. Cox and Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom, who oversees the Division of Elections, objecting to the dissolution of the AIP and claiming it was orchestrated by a small band of party leaders who failed to consult or even communicate with the larger rank-and-file membership.
Bird’s letter asked the Alaska Department of Law to investigate and intervene on behalf of the tens of thousands of AIP members who only heard of the party’s demise through local news reports.
“It is my contention that a 3-member board had no authority, within the party’s accepted by-laws, to declare the party defunct,” Bird noted. “No political party, especially one whose impact on state politics is large and undeniable… can dissolve itself without first calling a statewide convention.”
Bird asked the Dept. of Law to intervene and reverse the Division of Elections’ determination that the party was dead.
On Feb. 13, Bird received a reply from Cox which reveals that Alaska law does not actually regulate how a political party is dissolved. The letter was also signed by Dahlstrom.
“Alaska law does not contain a specific statute or regulation governing the dissolution of a political party,” Cox acknowledged. “In practice, the Division of Elections relies on formal communications from a party’s recognized leadership and reviews internal documentation – such as board minutes – to determine whether a party continues to exist as an organized political entity.”
In the case of the AIP, Cox said the Division of Elections relied on then-AIP Chairman John Wayne Howe’s word that the party was indeed dissolved.
“This approach is consistent with how the Division has handled the wind-down of other political groups, albeit on a smaller scale,” Cox explained.
He said Bird was free to organize a new AIP under the same name and bylaws and noted that the Division of Elections had opted to extend the 30-day window to 60 days before reclassifying former AIP voters as “undeclared.”
As for Bird’s request that the Dept. of Law reverse the Division of Elections’ acknowledgement that the AIP was officially dissolved, Cox said the Dept. of Law has no legal authority to override the decision.
“If you have questions for the Division, we recommend you contact them, including to obtain a list of voters currently registered as affiliated with the Alaska Independence Party (AIP),” Cox wrote.
With regard to whether the AIP’s dissolution was done in accord with the party’s official bylaws, Cox claimed that was an internal party governance matter in which “neither Division nor the Law Department play a role.”
“Truly, this entire affair will go down in state history as an example of mismanagement by state employees and legal ‘experts,’ who have ignored the persistent requests for a hearing and then produced an outcome that is supposed to be respected.”
Bird immediately responded with a Feb. 18 letter in which he questioned the state’s rationale for agreeing to acknowledge the dissolution of the AIP. He also wondered why the state had refused to consult with him or other AIP members before confirming that the party was dead – a courtesy he had explicitly requested.
Additionally, Bird said the state’s decision on the fate of the AIP and its members was made “without any consultation regarding the party’s by-laws or history.”
“You have admitted that the by-laws contain no provision for party dissolution,” Bird responded. “So, it has become an unfortunate norm, that all levels of government, do exactly the opposite of what is requested: instead of transparency and a willingness to serve its citizens, there is instead mystery, an unreasonable fear of the citizenry, and a Kafkaesque perpetual loop.”
Bird criticized the state’s decision to simply take the word of a “skeleton” group of AIP board members who claimed to have dissolved the party.
“The by-laws call for a minimum number of officers: Chairman, Vice-Chairman/North, Vice-Chairman/South, Treasurer and Secretary. That is five,” Bird noted. “Thus, a three member board was insufficient to make any decision, let alone one to dissolve the party.”
Bird pointed out that Alaska law requires a political party to hold a convention every two years, during the year of the general election.
“Thus, the convention is the operable authority, and not a 3-member skeleton, or even a properly constituted board,” he emphasized.
For historical precedent, Bird explained that he had helped re-constitute the Reform Party in 1999, which had been moth-balled at the time.
ALASKA WATCHMAN DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX
“Its former Alaskan officers gladly agreed to do so, being relieved of a once influential third party’s responsibilities,” Bird wrote. “This then, is a precedent that already exists. We issued a call to convention, it met, and a slate of officers went to the Reform Party national convention as delegates for Pat Buchanan in 2000. Once again, you would have learned this if there had been a discussion.”
Bird then blasted the way in which the Division of Elections chose to announce that it had extended the deadline for AIP members to re-register with another party – from 30 days to 60 days. The only notice to date is the letter sent directly to Bird.
“Is this how the State of Alaska communicates … through a communication to a former chairman, who has no way of spreading the word except through the media?” Bird wrote. “Was this a cost-saving effort, to avoid having to spend money to mail new notices to the 19,000 members?”
Bird asked that the extended 60-day window be further expanded to give him time to call an official party convention in April to either resurrect the party or dissolve it with the full agreement of the larger membership.
“Truly, this entire affair will go down in state history as an example of mismanagement by state employees and legal ‘experts,’ who have ignored the persistent requests for a hearing and then produced an outcome that is supposed to be respected,” Bird concluded, adding that he is hopeful the boiling controversy will become an election issue in the upcoming gubernatorial campaign.
“A sympathetic governor can then overrule the Division of Elections through Article 3, Section 16, and once again recognize the state’s third largest political party,” he noted.
