logo
Visitors to Alaska State Capitol will be screened under newly awarded contract

Visitors to Alaska State Capitol will be screened under newly awarded contract

Yahoo02-04-2025
The front of the Alaska State Capitol in Juneau is seen on Wednesday, April 12, 2023. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
Visitors to the state Capitol in Juneau will have to go through a metal detector under a policy adopted on Monday.
The Capitol visitor screening policy was approved in a 9-4 vote by the Legislative Council, a body made up of members from both the House and Senate that sets the rules for the Capitol complex.
Lawmakers did not publicly discuss or debate the policy change. Before the vote, they met in a session closed to the public for more than an hour and a half for a security briefing and to discuss the policy proposal.
The council declined to require that people in the building have ID badges, which was part of the original proposal.
Senate President Gary Stevens, R-Kodiak and the council's vice chair, supported the change. He described his reasoning in a Senate majority caucus news conference on Tuesday.
'The idea, really, is … to make sure people aren't entering with weapons — with guns, with knives and that sort of thing,' he said. 'You know, some folks have said, 'Well, let's wait until there's an incident, where someone gets hurt, and then we will install it.' I think that's not wise at all.'
Stevens cited a comment by Sen. Lyman Hoffman, D-Bethel, that hundreds of people undergo screenings at the annual Alaska Federation of Natives convention with little wait time.
Stevens also noted that metal detectors are used in the Dimond Courthouse across the street from the Capitol.
'You have them [at] every airport you enter into, so it's not as if people are unaware of how they work,' he said.
People who already have an electronic keycard to enter the building will not be affected by the policy. Stevens said the security staff who will operate the metal detectors say 20 seconds is the most time it would take to move through the devices.
Stevens said several times recently, people who work in the Capitol have told him they had concern or fear regarding visitors who don't have a reason to be in the building.
Rep. Sara Hannan, D-Juneau and the council chair, also voted for the change. She wrote in a newsletter to constituents on Tuesday that no legislators were happy to make the change, but waiting for a tragedy to occur was unacceptable.
'Legislative Council did not arrive at this decision lightly. For decades, we in Alaska have taken pride in the citizenry's open access to the Legislature,' Hannon wrote. 'However, and very unfortunately, in recent years our country has changed in ways that have led to increased risk of violence in our public institutions. The tragic, unchecked level of shootings in U.S. schools is in itself horrifying. The January 6th, 2020, attack on the nation's Capitol is another dispiriting example.'
Rep. Kevin McCabe, R-Big Lake, opposed the change. He is not currently on the council but served as its vice chair last year and said the idea has been under discussion for at least four years. He said Capitol security staff had brought up how only a few state capitols do not require screening. He said the staff's job is to keep the building secure, and they were doing their job by bringing the screening idea to legislators.
McCabe said the discussions prompted him and other Matanuska-Susitna Borough legislators to ask constituents about the idea while they were campaigning.
'They're already very angry that the Capitol is still down here in Juneau, where they can't come visit and they can't really get to us, so they just saw closing the Capitol with magnetometers and badges … they saw that as just another step in isolating legislators from the public,' McCabe said. 'And they believe, as do I frankly, that the Capitol building is the people's building.'
McCabe predicted that the next step would be to require badges.
'I just feel we should leave it open. We have a really able security team and, frankly, Alaskans are just not that militant, that they would storm the Capitol or come into the Capitol and create an issue,' he said.
The council members who voted for the policy change were chair Rep. Sara Hannan, D-Juneau; Stevens; House Speaker Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham; Sen. Matt Claman, D-Anchorage; Sen. Cathy Giessel, R-Anchorage; Sen. Elvi Gray-Jackson, D-Anchorage; Rep. Calvin Schrage, I-Anchorage; Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka; and Rep. Louise Stutes, R-Kodiak.
Voting against requiring the screenings were Rep. Ashley Carrick, D-Fairbanks; Sen. Jesse Kiehl, D-Juneau; Rep. Chuck Kopp, R-Anchorage; and Rep. Mike Prax, R-North Pole.
The council also voted 8-5 to award a contract for up to $35,000 to University Protection Service LP to provide the screening services. The only difference in the council members' votes was that of Stedman, who voted against the contract. He said he generally opposed adding the metal detectors, noting that visitors already have to make an effort to go to Juneau. But he said he decided to vote for the policy after the council made it less onerous by removing the ID badge requirement.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Immigration judges fired by Trump administration say they will fight back
Immigration judges fired by Trump administration say they will fight back

San Francisco Chronicle​

time30 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Immigration judges fired by Trump administration say they will fight back

CHICAGO (AP) — Federal immigration judges fired by the Trump administration are filing appeals, pursuing legal action and speaking out in an unusually public campaign to fight back. More than 50 immigration judges — from senior leaders to new appointees — have been fired since Donald Trump assumed the presidency for the second time. Normally bound by courtroom decorum, many are now unrestrained in describing terminations they consider unlawful and why they believe they were targeted. Their suspected reasons include gender discrimination, decisions on immigration cases played up by the Trump administration and a courthouse tour with the Senate's No. 2 Democrat. 'I cared about my job and was really good at it,' Jennifer Peyton, a former supervising judge told The Associated Press this week. 'That letter that I received, the three sentences, explained no reason why I was fired.' Peyton, who received the notice while on a July Fourth family vacation, was appointed judge in 2016. She considered it her dream job. Peyton was later named assistant chief immigration judge in Chicago, helping to train, mentor and oversee judges. She was a visible presence in the busy downtown court, greeting outside observers. She cited top-notch performance reviews and said she faced no disciplinary action. Peyton said she'll appeal through the Merit Systems Protection Board, an independent government agency Trump has also targeted. Peyton's theories about why she was fired include appearing on a 'bureaucrat watchdog list' of people accused by a right-wing organization of working against the Trump agenda. She also questions a courthouse tour she gave to Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois in June. The nation's immigration courts — with a backlog of about 3.5 million cases — have become a key focus of Trump's hard-line immigration enforcement efforts. The firings are on top of resignations, early retirements and transfers, adding up to 106 judges gone since January, according to the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, which represents judges. There are currently about 600 immigration judges. Several of those fired, including Peyton, have recently done a slew of interviews on local Chicago television stations and with national outlets, saying they now have a platform for their colleagues who remain on the bench. 'The ones that are left are feeling threatened and very uncertain about their future,' said Matt Biggs, the union's president. Carla Espinoza, a Chicago immigration judge since 2023, was fired as she was delivering a verdict this month. Her notice said she'd be dismissed at the end of her two-year probationary period with the Executive Office for Immigration Review. 'I am personally committed to my career. We're not political appointees,' she told AP. 'I'm entitled to a reason.' She believes the firings have disproportionately affected women and ethnic minorities, including people with Hispanic-sounding surnames like hers. She plans to take legal action before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which has also shifted focus under Trump. 'There's a very strong pattern of discriminatory factors,' she said. Espinoza thinks another reason could be her decision to release a Mexican immigrant falsely accused of threatening to assassinate Trump. Ramón Morales Reyes was accused of a writing a threatening letter by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. But the claims quickly fell apart as Wisconsin authorities determined that Morales Reyes was actually framed by a man who had previously attacked him. Espinoza said she felt pressure with public scrutiny, media coverage and Noem's statements about Morales Reyes, which weren't corrected or removed from social media. 'It's hard to silence the noise and just do your job fairly when there's so much distraction," she said. 'I think I did. And I stand by my decision as having been a fair one to release an individual who I believe was twice victimized.' Peyton said she isn't sure that working as an immigration judge is still her dream job. 'It's important that everyone in our country knows what's happening in our immigration courts,' she said. 'The Department of Justice that I joined in 2016 is not the same one now.'

Trump ignites chain reaction with early redistricting gamble
Trump ignites chain reaction with early redistricting gamble

Axios

timean hour ago

  • Axios

Trump ignites chain reaction with early redistricting gamble

The Trump White House is pushing ahead with an extraordinary effort to game the system by redrawing congressional maps ahead of the midterms. Democrats are finding it tricky to fight back. Why it matters: The push to add Republican House seats is sparking a chain reaction as the parties fight tooth-and-nail over the majority. "Why the f**k are we responding and reacting to the other side instead of taking offense on these things?" potential Texas Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke told Democrats this week. But going on offense is easier said than done: Democrats would need a court order or special election in most states where they could try to draw more favorable maps. The big picture: Republicans are hoping to pick off more than a half-dozen Democratic-held seats by redrawing congressional maps ahead of 2026. Redistricting for partisan advantage is nothing new, but it's usually done after the census every ten years. The next one's scheduled for 2030. In Texas, Trump has encouraged Republicans to embark on a redistricting project that he's said could net the party as many as five seats. In Ohio, which is required by law to redraw its House map, party strategists believe they can gain two or three seats. In Missouri, Republicans believe they can pick up another seat. Zoom in: Gov. Greg Abbott and other Texas Republicans were at first hesitant to take up redistricting, the Texas Tribune reported. After Trump's call to Abbott, it appeared on the special session agenda. Texas Democrats have limited options to push back, but have considered breaking quorum to prevent a vote on the issue. Republicans are looking to South Texas after Trump performed well with Latino voters there. It could backfire: Adding Democratic voters to GOP districts to build more Republican districts elsewhere risks turning safe seats into competitive races, said Jon Taylor, department chair and political science professor at the University of Texas at San Antonio. The other side: Democrats, led by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, have vowed to punch back by drawing roughly as many new Democratic seats. Newsom will need to act fast. In his case, he's suggested calling a special election to green light redistricting ahead of 2026. Newsom hosted California and Texas lawmakers in Sacramento on Friday to plot strategy. Other big Democratic states — such as New York, New Jersey and Illinois — also have redistricting limits in their state constitutions. They'll need courts to help, or push through fast amendments. Between the lines: The White House has no bigger priority in the midterms than keeping the House. " The battlefield is extremely narrow compared to 10 or 20 years ago. To the extent the GOP can widen it, on favorable terms, that's a huge advantage," said Matt Gorman, a former National Republican Congressional Committee official. Should Democrats seize the lower chamber, it would paralyze Trump's legislative agenda for his final two years in office and potentially lead to him getting impeached. Trump was impeached following the 2018 midterms, when Democrats won the House majority. The bottom line: There's already a warning sign for Republicans as they weigh redistricting.

Democrat who questioned Roger Marshall at Kansas townhall files campaign papers
Democrat who questioned Roger Marshall at Kansas townhall files campaign papers

Yahoo

time4 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Democrat who questioned Roger Marshall at Kansas townhall files campaign papers

A Johnson County Democrat who made national news by driving to Oakley in western Kansas for U.S. Sen. Roger Marshall's townhall has filed paperwork indicating she will run against the senator. Anne Parelkar, of Overland Park, filed a statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission on July 24. She hasn't officially announced a campaign. Parelkar had previously set up a website where she said she was exploring a U.S. Senate run. She also launched a listening tour and spoke at an April 5 protest at the Kansas Statehouse in Topeka. "Kansans deserve leaders who tell the truth, listen first, and put people over politics," the website states. "Anne Parelkar is a Kansas attorney and aspiring public servant exploring a run for U.S. Senate. She believes elected officials should answer to the people. Not to party leaders. Not to political donors. Just to the people." Parelkar was one of the Kansans who drove to Oakley for Marshall's March 1 townhall, where she asked about cutting federal workers. Marshall ultimately walked out of the contentious townhall meeting and was showered by boos. He later walked back a claim that troublemakers were paid to attend the meeting, admitting he did not have evidence to back up the allegation. Parelkar's FEC paperwork designates Anne for Kansas as her principal campaign committee for the 2026 election. Marshall was elected to the Senate in 2020 after previously represented the 1st Congressional District that primarily encompasses western Kansas. He received 53% of the vote, compared to Democrat Barbara Bollier's 42% and Libertarian Jason Buckley's 5%. Marshall's reelection campaign has about $2.7 million cash on hand according to his most recent FEC filings. More: New FEC campaign finance filings show how much money Kansas congressional team has Jason Alatidd is a Statehouse reporter for The Topeka Capital-Journal. He can be reached by email at jalatidd@ Follow him on X @Jason_Alatidd. This article originally appeared on Topeka Capital-Journal: Kansas Democrat files FEC paperwork to run against Sen. Roger Marshall Solve the daily Crossword

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store