Alaska Libertarian Party

We believe in personal freedom & maintaining personal responsibility. Alaskans should be free to pursue their interests, so long as it doesn't harm others.

[Alaska Libertarian Party @AlaskaLP]

Three Libertarians filed for office in Alaska this week. Jim McDermott for U.S. House. Scott Kohlhaas for U.S. Senate. Jonathan Powell-Mark for Alaska House District 31. Alaska deserves a real alternative. We are done waiting.

[Alaska Libertarian Party @AlaskaLP]

@alaskalandmine See this is something we can get behind 😂
But Heather McElwain would have to be invited as well. Vote Libertarian write in Heather McElwain for U.S. Senate and vote for Jim McDermott for U.S. House.

[Alaska Libertarian Party @AlaskaLP]

@AnswerIsLibrty Alaska's own attorneys filed to dismiss the DOJ lawsuit Monday. Their words: 'the United States lacks authority to intervene in state elections at all, much less in support of a favored candidate.'

[Alaska Libertarian Party @AlaskaLP]

Recruiting a candidate is First Amendment activity. Political organizing is First Amendment activity. Running for office is First Amendment activity.

The courts already said the state couldn't remove Dan J. Sullivan from the ballot. The NYT story doesn't change that. It just proves factions do what Madison said they would.

That was never the scandal. The federal and state response is.

[Alaska Libertarian Party @AlaskaLP]

@PubliusIsBack If only it was that easy.

[Alaska Libertarian Party @AlaskaLP]

@AKMAC19 He filed under his legal name. The Division of Elections letter is public record. The Alaska Supreme Court reviewed it and put him on the ballot.

[Alaska Libertarian Party @AlaskaLP]

@AKMikado Can you give us the statute?

[Alaska Libertarian Party @AlaskaLP]

@ChaseForLiberty Check out what our Communications Director wrote about this race back in June.

https://t.co/Z2oO76WO7R

[Alaska Libertarian Party @AlaskaLP]

The Constitution lists three qualifications to run for U.S. Senate. Age. Citizenship. Residency. Dan J. Sullivan met all three. The Alaska Supreme Court agreed twice.

Federalist 10 didn't promise factions would stop trying to manipulate outcomes. It warned they always would. The answer Madison gave wasn't moral declarations from sitting senators. It was structural rules that apply regardless of who benefits.

Sen. Murkowski's statement isn't a check on faction politics. It is faction politics.

[Heather McElwain @HeatherMcAk]

Thank you, @Jdmchoes , @AlaskaLP Communications Director, for your endorsement! "Heather McElwain is hardworking, family-first and ready to serve Alaska. I'm proud to endorse her." Grateful for a great teacher as a newcomer to the Libertarian Party. I really respect you, Josh!🫶

7 days to Nov 3. Early voting through Nov 2. Write in Heather McElwain and fill the 1st Choice oval for U.S. Senate.
#GoGoldAlaska https://t.co/swN8x1OcEP
Paid for by McElwain for Alaska committee

[Alaska Libertarian Party @AlaskaLP]

@NickforAlaska Luckily they dont have to vote for either when theyve got Jim McDermott on the ballot. https://t.co/yg8d2LxHM8

[Alaska Libertarian Party @AlaskaLP]

@alaskalandmine @SenDanSullivan After how the GOP treated him, why stay? "Weve already got two Dan Sullivans we like." 😒

[Alaska Libertarian Party @AlaskaLP]

@alaskalandmine @lisamurkowski I mean 🤔

[Alaska Libertarian Party @AlaskaLP]

@AlaskaForSale @alaskalandmine @MaryPeltola Republicans are just as bad pretending they support free markets. As we see in Alaska with their love of AIDEA and federal expenditures for the military.

[Alaska Libertarian Party @AlaskaLP]

@TheBlogisRome @alaskalandmine @MaryPeltola Free press means Jeff can report it. Free press also means we can tell Jeff he's wrong. That's how it works.

[Alaska Libertarian Party @AlaskaLP]

Agreed. Voters should be informed. Here it is.

Article I, Section 3, Clause 3. Three qualifications. Hamilton, Federalist 60: "unalterable by the legislature." Madison, Federalist 62: listed three, stopped. Federal Farmer: furious the list was too short, knew it was exhaustive. Dickinson at the convention: warned that listing any qualifications meant no others could be added. Powell v. McCormack (1969): Congress limited to qualifications prescribed in the Constitution. US Term Limits v. Thornton (1995): Framers divested states of any power to add qualifications. Alaska Supreme Court, June 2026: same answer.

The Heritage Foundation's own constitutional reference says the same thing. Photos above.

[Alaska Libertarian Party @AlaskaLP]

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 60, February 23, 1788: "Its authority would be expressly restricted to the regulation of the times, the places, and the manner of elections. The qualifications of the persons who may choose or be chosen are defined and fixed in the constitution; and are unalterable by the legislature."

Madison, Federalist No. 62, February 27, 1788, listed three qualifications and stopped. The convention debated property requirements, religious tests, and district residency. They chose three.

The Federal Farmer, the leading Anti-Federalist critic of the Constitution, was furious about the qualifications clause. He complained that the Constitution allows "pagans," "convicts," and "beggars" to serve in Congress. He wanted property requirements and religious qualifications. He was angry because the list was exhaustive and he knew it. Adding more qualifications required a constitutional amendment.

John Dickinson at the Constitutional Convention opposed listing any qualifications at all. Farrand's Records: he argued that enumerating some would "by implication tie up the hands of the Legislature from supplying the omissions." The convention listed three anyway. Dickinson was right about the consequence.

Chief Justice Earl Warren, Powell v. McCormack, 1969: "In judging the qualifications of its members Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution."

Justice John Paul Stevens, US Term Limits v. Thornton, 1995: "The Framers intended the Constitution to be the exclusive source of qualifications for members of Congress, and that the Framers thereby divested States of any power to add qualifications."

The current Supreme Court uses originalist interpretation. Originalism means you read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers to find the founders' intent. Hamilton, Madison, the Federal Farmer, and Dickinson all understood Article I the same way. Warren confirmed it in 1969. Stevens confirmed it in 1995. Two Alaska courts confirmed it in June 2026.

The photos above are from The Heritage Foundation's own constitutional reference. This is the conservative movement's own legal scholarship.

The list has not changed since February 27, 1788.

[Alaska Libertarian Party @AlaskaLP]

Nothing described here is illegal. Hamilton and the Anti-Federalists agreed in 1788 that the qualifications clause was exhaustive. Two Alaska courts confirmed it in 2026. The founders specifically decided this was allowed.

[The Alaska Landmine @alaskalandmine]

So this is wild. Daniel J. Sullivan (Decoy Dan) has a son Noah. Noah works for Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, the co-chair of the Blue Dog Democrats.

When @MaryPeltola was in Congress, she was a co-chair of the Blue Dog Democrats along with… Gluesenkamp Perez!

The odds of Decoy Dan filing to run against @SenDanSullivan and Decoy Dan’s son workin for Gluesenkamp Perez being a coincidence are near zero.

[Alaska Libertarian Party @AlaskaLP]

The current Supreme Court uses originalist interpretation. Originalism means you read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers to find the founders' intent. Both sides of that founding debate agreed the qualifications clause was exhaustive. An originalist bench is the last bench they want reviewing this.

[Alaska Libertarian Party @AlaskaLP]

@AlaskanRants Not illegal at all. The founders intended this.

[Alaska Libertarian Party @AlaskaLP]

The dots are connected. His son working for a Democrat isn't illegal. Coordination isn't illegal. Running to split votes isn't illegal. The founders read the same dots in 1788 and wrote three qualifications into the Constitution. The courts read them in 2026 and put him on the ballot. The argument isn't that it isn't slimy. The argument is that slimy isn't the test.