Alaskan candidates running for governor in 2026 are presented below in alphabetical order. Click on a candidate’s name to see their answer to the highlighted question below. Several candidates chose not to participate.
Alaska’s Constitution (Art. 3, Section 16) states that the governor is responsible for the “faithful execution of the laws,” and may “enforce compliance with any constitutional or legislative mandate, or restrain violation of any constitutional or legislative power, duty, or right by any officer, department, or agency of the State or any of its political subdivisions.” How would you exercise this constitutional authority to check or restrain potential violations of the Alaska Constitution by the judicial branch?
ALASKA WATCHMAN DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX
Candidate answers begin below…
TOM BEGICH [D]
The candidate chose not to answer.
CLICK BISHOP [R]
The candidate chose not to answer.
DAVE BRONSON [R]
Alaska’s government is built on checks and balances. Every public official swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, and when any branch exceeds its authority, the others have a duty to respond.
As governor, I would act deliberately and within the law. I would direct the Attorney General to review and challenge unconstitutional actions, refuse to enforce mandates that clearly violate the Constitution, and ensure state resources are not used to carry out overreach. I would also hold executive agencies accountable if they enable violations.
This is not about conflict between branches. It is about protecting the rule of law. Each situation requires judgment, restraint, and a clear understanding of constitutional limits.
The principle is simple. No branch or person is above the Constitution, and the governor must be willing to act when that line is crossed.
MATT CLAMAN [D]
The candidate chose not to answer.
ADAM CRUM [R]
The candidate chose not to answer.
NANCY DAHLSTROM [R]
The candidate chose not to answer.
EDNA DEVRIES [R]
I would carefully weigh what cases I bring before the court system, with the current makeup. We are still bound by the so-called ‘privacy clause’ in our state constitution regarding abortion. In my opinion, recent decisions have not assisted our conservative causes.
In 1980, this case is still cited for the rule that the governor must execute the laws as written, not expand them. To this day, only a few states have such a provision. It authorizes the governor to sue to enforce the constitution and the law, and to restrain state agencies from unconstitutional conduct. Wisdom will have to direct me as the new Governor as I view the present Judicial system in the State of Alaska, and I have many doubts regarding getting a favorable decision from them. There are questions regarding whether he can sue the legislature, as there is some court decision on the governor’s authority line…
(EDITOR’S NOTE: This answer was cut off after reaching the 150-word response limit.)
MEDA DEWITT [NON/IND]
The candidate chose not to answer.
JESSICA FAIRCLOTH [NON/IND]
The candidate chose not to answer.
MATT HEILALA [R]
The candidate chose not to answer.
SHELLEY HUGHES [R]
As governor, I’d lead a transparent SCO1993 review to ensure Alaska’s grand jury system reflects its constitutional purpose. The executive branch would no longer be the gatekeeper. The grand jury is to be a citizen check on power, not as a tool constrained by the institutions it may be asked to examine. I’d bring together legal scholars, public members, etc. to clarify investigative authority, remove unnecessary procedural barriers, and restore proper separation of powers. Accountability is to flow upward from the people. Alaskans need to know when concerns arise, there’s a clear, accessible path to be heard –that the system can respond in a fair, transparent way. The governor’s check on the judiciary has been diminished as the judge selection has become limited. The rare but remaining tool to put a check on the judiciary is to “restrain violation of any constitutional … power,” i.e., an unconstitutional ruling should be defied.
JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS [D]
The candidate chose not to answer.
HENRY F. “HANK” KROLL [R]
If a state judge is found guilty of crimes or misdemeanors, they can be removed, with the most common action being by a State Judicial Conduct Commission, impeachment, or in some cases, automatic removal upon conviction. These methods typically ensure that a judge convicted of serious misconduct or a crime involving moral turpitude is removed from the bench. At the present time, there are mounting protests against the Alaska Judicial Council’s refusal to sanction corrupt judges. If I were to discover malfeasance, as Governor, I would seek Impeachment by the State legislature. State legislatures can impeach judges.
House of Representatives: The lower house passes articles of impeachment.
State Senate: The upper house holds a trial to convict and remove the judge.
Impact: A convicted judge is removed and potentially disqualified from holding future office.
JAMES PARKIN [R]
My mission is to restore the constitutional balance of power and ensure your voice is the final authority. While Article 3, Section 16 governs the executive, I will utilize every constitutional “check” to protect your rights.
I will appoint originalist judges who respect the law’s founding intent and use the Bully Pulpit to advocate against the retention of those who overreach. If the courts or legislature fail you, I will propose targeted constitutional amendments and support legislation that reinstates true constitutional meaning.
Crucially, I will establish the Office of Constitutional Accountability and a statewide communications network. This empowers you with the tools for due process – including recall, impeachment, and grand jury independence – ensuring the law works for the people, not the bureaucracy. I will direct the Attorney General to stop defending unconstitutional rules and instead fight for your inherent liberties. Your trust is the foundation of our state.
DESTRY PAYNE [AK PARTY]
I would mandate that each and every office holder possess and display their sworn oath of office, where the public can easily view and read it. If the oath is not present, the office is considered vacant and subject to an emergency election for a proper officer. Much of the system is designed to protect itself from the people. To protect bad actors like we have seen much of over the last 10 years. I feel the system must be altered for accountability to the people. If the oath is violated, the officer is to face a jury of the people who elected the officer. I believe those who blatantly violate their oath for self-aggrandizement should not just lose their bond, but also lose their personal wealth and possessions, too. Including any family members who have also benefited from the fraud.
TREG TAYLOR [R]
The candidate chose not to answer.
BRUCE WALDEN [R]
We all see what has happened as touching the Grand Jury Process. I will appoint an AG who will pursue this side-stepping of the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8, last sentence states plainly: The power of grand juries to investigate and make recommendations concerning the public welfare or safety shall never be suspended. Shall NEVER be suspended. That’s not a maybe. If the judiciary does not have to abide by the law, then none of us are required to, and if none of us are required to abide by the law, we have anarchy. I will prosecute this to the fullest extent. And those who are on a jury and decide to go AWOL without a word – that will be looked into as well.
BERNADETTE WILSON [R]
The candidate chose not to answer.
6 Comments
B. Wilson,
Has the MOB got your tounge?
Humm
Enlightening. I liked Wilson, unfortunately she made the list of “will NOT vote for”, because of her willingness not to answer. That question was a front and center question.
Bronson’s answer is the clearest and strongest. Hughes’ is good. But it is difficult to imagine any conservative candidate unwilling to answer these questions from The Watchman. So much for their sincerity about being transparent!
Bronson’s answer is the best because he’s the best candidate! GO BRONSON!
History PFD:
(recall *** Placing the Fund’s founding language in the Constitution had the added benefit of helping protect it from being spent by the Legislature without a vote of the people. )
What happened in 2018-2019:
For the first time in state history, the Legislature adopts a mechanism whereby Fund earnings are used not just to pay dividends, but to also contribute to state government under a percent of market value (POMV) methodology. Under this rules-based framework, the state operating budget for FY19 includes a $2.7 billion POMV draw from the Fund for the payment of dividends and to support government services.
***
So. How did government derive permission to draw from the peoples share of dividend funds in order to offset Alaska government overspending.
++ Please review The Watchman Opinion Piece from October 27, 2025 by Michael Tavoliero ++
Titled: OPINION: How politicians turned Alaska’s PFD into a hidden head tax
Quote from the article:
“But in the last decade, something subtle and corrosive happened. Politicians changed the rules, not by passing a tax, ***not by asking voters for consent***, but by quietly diverting the people’s share of the Permanent Fund into government spending. They called it “fiscal responsibility.” In truth, it was the invention of a new kind of tax. One never voted on, never debated honestly, and never named for what it is: an end-run tax on every Alaskan.”
NOW
Question to the individuals who wish to be Governor: What will you do to restore the PFD distribution to the residents of Alaska as stated in the statutory allotment of PFD revenue?
I’ve said this before, Don’t vote for anyone, who didn’t answer the question. You can see a pattern from the last few questions, that Joel has asked these candidates.