Seventeen candidates are running to be Alaska’s next governor. Alaskans are already heading to the polls for early voting in the Aug. 18 nonpartisan, pick-one primary, which will narrow the field to four.
It can be tough to pick a favorite in a crowded field, so as the primary nears, Alaska Public Media is conducting interviews with some of the top candidates in the race. We've reached out to every campaign that's raised $50,000 or more, and nearly all have responded.
Today, we’ll hear from Republican candidate Shelley Hughes, who resigned her Palmer state Senate seat last year after more than a decade in the Legislature to seek the state’s top elected office.
This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.
Shelley Hughes, thank you so much for joining us.
Thank you. I am delighted to be here, Eric, and I thank you for providing an opportunity for Alaska voters to hear from candidates so they can make the best decision based on their positions and beliefs and the direction they want to see Alaska head.
Absolutely, that's the goal. So you have had a long and varied journey throughout your five decades in Alaska — stints in Southeast, Bethel, Fairbanks and Seward. I believe you settled in Palmer in 1990. And I wonder what you've learned at each stop along the way. How has your journey throughout Alaska sort of shaped who you are and what you believe?
Yeah, I want to add Fort Yukon above the Arctic Circle to that mix too. Don't want to forget that community.
Well, I will tell you right off the bat, my heart is in every region of the state, because a piece of it always stays there, and you carry it with you. And I was attentive to the various regions of the state while I was serving, and I will continue to be as governor.
I think it is an advantage to have lived all over the state. Put the map of Alaska on the Lower 48, and it encompasses lots of states. They're very different. The regions have unique challenges, but they also have something very unique that they can contribute to the state, and we want to unshackle that for the different regions.
So I'm really grateful, Eric, that I had that opportunity at the time. Of course, I had no clue I would be talking to you and running for governor. I was busy raising kids, busy working, supporting a family. And during that time, also as a young mom under the poverty level — what an opportunity this state was. You could be and become, do and become whatever you wanted, and that is a motivator for me now. When I heard that young people, young working families, are leaving the state — we have decade-old problems that need to be solved, and I'm all about fixing things. I'm all about pragmatic solutions. I'm all about getting things done. I despise rhetoric and slogans. I like to figure out what are the action steps that we can take. And understanding the issues throughout the state, I think, is an important foundation for the next governor.
So you were in the Legislature from the early 2010s until late last year, when you resigned to campaign full time. And for someone who might just be getting to know you, I'm curious, what would you point to as your biggest accomplishments? Like, what are those action steps that you led or that you took in the Legislature during your career there?
Yeah, my first session in the House was in 2013. Served there four years, and then eight-plus in the Senate as Senate Judiciary (Committee) chair, Senate majority leader, had a number of other chairmanships.
I would say there are a couple fronts. Big education promoter. I feel like we are in some ways failing our children right now and not properly equipping them.
I was at a forum at the Loussac Library. The moderators were two professors, and they were seeing a trend where they have more and more students that are coming into the university that are struggling with basic math and don't even know how to read well.
So the Alaska Reads Act — what we could call the Mississippi Miracle bill — that was originally my bill. Had it for a couple of years. Had some good hearings. But I was actually the one that walked into the Senate Education Committee a few years back, and I saw the perfect committee that would embrace this bill. So instead of it being mine, I went to the chair and went to the minority leader at the time, Tom Begich, and I said, how about if we put this into a committee bill, so it's not a single legislator, but we jointly as the Senate, it can be our bill. And it passed unanimously in the Senate.
(There was a) little struggle over in the House — I had Republicans that weren't sure about it, but over the course of the time they understood that a child learning to read is really important, and it's a key to unlock the rest of academic outcomes for them. So that's in play now in the early grades, K-3. We won't see the real benefit of that, but as they move through middle school and high school, we will. So I'm very proud of that.
I also was a Senate Judiciary chair who led the repeal of SB 91. Many of us voted for it, myself included, and I'm not afraid to admit when I make a mistake and learn. In that case, information was withheld from us. We didn't hear from law enforcement across the state or from prosecutors. They were instructed not to weigh in. And we were told this is what Texas was doing, which it really was far more. It was swinging the pendulum too far. And many Alaskans remember how shoplifting increased, car thefts went up, home burglary break-ins were occurring on a nightly basis, and that was a very scary time.
And I was the first one. At the time, I was actually undergoing breast cancer treatment — 100%, 100% cleared and free and healthy. But at that time, I probably didn't look too great, Eric. And I took my phone and I did a Facebook Live — and this was a number of years ago, it was when Facebook Lives actually were first out there — and made a video, basically spoke to Alaskans, that I regretted my vote and that I was going to do everything in my power to repeal SB 91. And as it turned out, the good Lord allowed me to be the Senate Judiciary chair then, to lead that repeal. And we had to really buckle down on a couple things to make sure we could get them. There was a little bit of a fight, but in the end we got a full repeal. So those were really major accomplishments that impacted the entire state.
And then on smaller fronts, I was the one that ushered in the unmanned aircraft industry into this state. And I'm not solely responsible. I want to tell you, though — when I was first in the House, there were efforts around the country to ban drones from states, and there were people that had approached me, they'd approached (Democratic Fairbanks) Sen. Scott Kawasaki at the time, and he might have been in the House then. And we both had bills. He had a bill to ban it. And I looked at it and said, well, let me look at it. And I realized, my goodness, this state's built on aviation, and we have limited infrastructure. These are tools. There's nothing inherently evil about this piece of equipment. The operators could do bad things, but there's nothing evil about the equipment. We just need to harness it for good, right, and protect from harm.
And so that became the journey, and we actually promoted them through resolution, which then in turn got the University of Alaska Fairbanks — they ended up being awarded a really important FAA testing site, being named as one of the first few testing sites in the nation, and they've gone leaps and bounds since then. And now we have a small unmanned aircraft industry in this state.
So I was never afraid to look at things, take the long view, look at what are the innovative things that can help this state. And that's just one example of many things where I worked on things that may be smaller in scale, but they're important and they're impacting families and the livelihoods of Alaskans today.
Another problem that you tackled during your time in Juneau was quite a bit bigger. You were a member of the Fiscal Policy Working Group, working on solutions to the state's structural deficit. That is a problem that will continue to face the next governor. And I'm curious why you think this has been such a tough problem to solve, and what you would do differently as governor to actually get a solution over the finish line.
You know, that was a bipartisan working group. I was actually on both, but the second one was the one where we really buckled down and came with a full plan. And I want to tell you, we met in my office when the group came back. We came back to the session, and as the working group — it was members from the House and the Senate, from both majorities and minorities — and we were kind of reporting back to our caucuses and then joining together to see what the tone was, what was the receptivity to what we were presenting. And the feedback from the other caucuses was that people liked it and they could see it would work. It wasn't everybody, but it was probably 45 or more people, 50 maybe, out of 60, who thought it was a good idea.
But here's what's key, Eric. The people that were the chairs of the relevant committees through which the legislation would need to travel, they were not embracing it. So we technically had enough votes as far as what would go up on the House board and the Senate voting board, but we didn't have the chairs on board. So the plan was never heard, never moved through.
But what that tells me is we hit on something that could work. And so, with that and my working relationships with the legislators, my door was always open, no matter where anyone was on the political spectrum. I could walk into any office. Everything I accomplished — one of the other things I did was work on increasing penalties for perpetrators of sexual assault, and I worked on that with a House Democrat from Anchorage at the time, Representative Geran Tarr. So that was my style of doing things: reaching across the aisle, typically with someone from the other body, in order to get things done. And so that base of relationships and trust that I built with legislators is going to be powerful as governor, because I will be in the Capitol and my door will continue to be open.
Kind of funny, but I'll tell a story. I was on a bus up in the Fairbanks area in the fall, while I still held the seat as senator, before I went full time into my campaign. And there were a bunch of Democrats on the bus, and we were having a good time. And they laughed and said, you know, we want a Democrat governor, but if it's going to be a Republican, we hope it's you, because you work with us. If we have a good idea that's going to help the state, you will take it and run with it. And that's why I am — if it's a good policy, if it's going to help Alaskans, it doesn't matter where it comes from. I can work on board.
And I think that's really pivotal for the next governor: to have a proven track record of being able to work with legislators and to get major items across the finish line. And I have that track record.
Candidates can sound good and they can talk about how they're going to do this or that, but many of them do not have the proven track record. It's not only the proven track record, Eric, of being able to work with people and have major accomplishments go through, but it's the already established relationships, because that can take a while to build, right? And understanding the issues, and that can take a while to learn. If you're coming directly out of some field, you bring great expertise from that field, but there are so many issues the state of Alaska faces.
So coming with firsthand knowledge and an understanding of the many, many issues, I think, is important. Having established relationships, having a track record of being able to get things done, that's what we want. We don't want an ineffective governor hitting brick walls. The way I see it, we can't afford to tread water. We certainly don't want to slip, but we don't want to tread water either. There are certain things we need to get done.
Getting our fiscal house in order is important, and when I look at the slate of candidates, I feel like I'm best equipped to be able to navigate that.
It's not going to be easy, and I don't have a magic wand, but I understand the importance. I know what the pitfalls are. And the way my brain is wired, if you do hit a brick wall, don't step back and then plunge into the brick wall again. You step back and re-strategize. And that's the way I am wired, and that’s what I would do. And I can’t make promises, but I can tell you I would work hard and be persistent and try to be really wise as far as how to get things through.
On the one hand, I can stand up and fight and be as feisty as the next person, but coupled with that, I have the wisdom to know when it's time to sit down at the table and build consensus. You don't give away the farm when you do that. You stick to your values and principles. But there truly are things that we can come together and get done, and that can be challenging, but it's rewarding. And that is the skill set that I'm offering to Alaskans.
So I'm curious how you would mechanically actually balance the budget as well. Would you look for new sources of revenue, for instance, like new taxes, or rolling back tax credits, or things of that nature? You've talked a lot about reducing government spending. You've talked about a sunset commission. You've talked about reducing waste, fraud and abuse in government. But I wonder if you think that — I guess I'm curious how you would actually balance the budget.
You know, one of the things we have to be very careful — it's a bit of a balancing act, a tightrope — is the affordability crisis that we're in, and it's the reason young people, young working families are leaving. The cost of housing, the cost of groceries, the cost of energy. So putting any burden on individuals — terrible timing. And even on businesses. You tax more of something, you get less productivity. So that's a really, really hard thing at this particular juncture.
So I do think first things first, the sunset audit commission has to get rocking and rolling right off the ground. And it is estimated it could be upwards and downwards from a billion dollars — so anywhere from a half a billion to a billion and a half of fraud, waste and abuse. And that's not going to impact and degrade services to Alaskans. That's money going out the door that shouldn't be. So we really have to focus on that.
And also, I would institute an inspector general and incentivize state employees, where they might not want to criticize to their bosses things that could be done better or expose something that is wasteful. They would have the freedom to come to the inspector general, and the inspector general could get those things implemented to improve that particular agency or office and save money in the here and now, as well as these very in-depth audits.
For those that don't know what the sunset audit commission is — it's different, because it's not an audit report. It's recommendations made by the auditors that the commissioners, that are selected by the governor, confirmed by the Legislature — those recommendations the auditors come up with go into a bill, a piece of legislation, and travel through the Legislature. The Legislature can change it up, they can remove things, but historically, in other places where they have sunset audit commissions, 80 to 90% of those recommendations are preserved. They go through the legislative process and they become law. And so it sticks, and it helps create more efficient agencies that are more responsive to the public.
And the reason that is so important is, once you do that, the public has confidence they're getting their best bang for their buck in that agency. Once that agency is honed and made more efficient and effective, that's a positive thing. And then, if we get to the place where oil prices drastically drop and we have to look at coming back to the people, the people have confidence, and we can get that through.
But I would say right now we've got to focus on the efficiencies right out of the gate, without degrading the essential services that the state is responsible to provide. And at the same time, we are going to address decades-old problems that have been around. We have been hearing for 40-plus years we need low-cost energy. We are going to work to actually achieve it, Eric.
And we're not putting all our eggs in one basket. We're not just going after natural gas, which is definitely the big part of it. But we have to start getting going on hydro projects. We are blessed with an opulent supply of 3 million lakes, 12,000 rivers. There are hydro sites, small sites, all over this state — the Susitna-Watana dam project. We can actually enhance the fish habitat now. The technology, the engineering, it's so much better than it was. So hydro is just so sensible, and in the end, it is the most cost-effective. There's a big cost up front, but in the end it's the best and most reliable.
We need to look at geothermal. We have pockets of geothermal. And I'll even tell you, I would support the research and the projects, the pilot projects at volcano sites. That's geothermal on steroids. And we need to not be afraid of clean coal technology. The emissions are down by about 95%, and that's only going to get better with improvements. People are innovative these days. There are ways that we can do things that are still responsible stewardship as far as our environment.
The small modular (nuclear) reactors — I carried the legislation for the pilot project that's happening up at Eielson Air Force Base. Those are going to be available on the market pretty soon. We need to be able to welcome those. And (they are a) great, great, great answer for some of our rural areas — these are portable, they're small. We need to get our communities off of diesel.So, low-cost energy.
When you start to achieve it, your tax base is going to expand, because the high cost of power keeps us from value-added processing. It keeps us from responsible mining. And right now the nation is reliant on China. Give me a break. We can be an answer on the globe for responsible development of our critical minerals.
So, low-cost power expands our tax base, and even if it's an industry or business that doesn't pay royalties, that doesn't pay production taxes, it's still going to help the state budget. Let me tell you why.
Because in the local communities, it increases the tax base, the revenue for that local community. And when that local community has a thriving economy within its municipality, it's less reliant on the state. So no matter what type of business, it's either going to provide revenue for the local community and the state, or just the local community, but both help.
And so expanding the tax base and working on getting more efficient, effective agencies through the sunset audit commission, that's got to happen first, and then we see where we fall. And I will tell you, the public's not going to embrace any kind of broad-based anything, or business for that matter, unless we fix the broken spending cap that's in the Constitution. And I'm not talking about a draconian, tight spending cap that would be overly restrictive. I'm talking about a sensible one, one that has release valves, so if we have a surplus, we can use it for our capital budget, for infrastructure, for things that are needed and an appropriate role for the state government.
One of the areas I've heard few people talking about is emergency preparedness, disaster preparedness, food security challenges. I think that is one of the things that is at the top of the list, along with public safety and things like that, and our roads. It's the state's role in the event of these kinds of things, and we're always going to have these types of disasters based on where we are.
And even from a national security position, we need to be better prepared overall, a stronger state in that regard. And I'm very proud that I have retired General Blake Gettys on board as my running mate. He's overqualified. He's absolutely the best of lieutenant governors out there, bar none. And I'd be jealous if he were on another ticket. But that guy, he is ready. He understands those issues. He has the background and the wherewithal to help lead some of these major efforts.
And he will not sit down the hall in my administration. We've had smart, competent lieutenant governors who've been handcuffed from doing a whole lot. He is actually going to lead some of the major efforts to solve decades-old problems. If he gets the limelight for doing great things, all the power to him. I want him to, because we've got stuff that needs to be fixed.
And I've been telling people, you're getting a two-for-one with our ticket, because you're not just going to have one person going to bat for you. You're going to have two people working hard every day to do what we can to help you have a more affordable life, a more rewarding life in the state, and a place where your children and your grandchildren are going to want to stay instead of packing up and moving to the Lower 48, like is happening now.
So there's a lot there that I want to follow up on, but I want to start with what you said about waste, fraud and abuse being somewhere between half a billion and $1.5 billion of the state budget.
I'm looking at some budget figures here, and $1.5 billion is the entire general-purpose state dollars for the Department of Education and Early Development, which is the largest department in terms of unrestricted state dollars. Even the prison system, the Department of Corrections, is half a billion dollars a year.
So one thing I'm curious about is, why do you think that you could find $500 million to $1.5 billion in waste, fraud and abuse in the budget, given that there's already been a conservative budget hawk at the helm for eight years in the form of Gov. Mike Dunleavy? Why do you think you could find more that hasn't been addressed already?
Well, I'll tell you, when we were wanting to get some funds specifically to the school district to help with the Alaska Reads Act, I suggested that we go after some of the unfunded — I'm sorry, the unfilled positions, that had been hanging around for a long time but that continued to be funded and basically became a slush fund for the departments. That's one area. In other states, if a position is unfilled for a certain amount of time, three months, six months, a year, it is taken off the books. We keep them around for decades. Now, some need to stay on there, because they are essential jobs and we do need to get them filled. But the number that we have and the amount that we're funding, those are dollars.
I've also had so many teachers from across the state. I was Education (Committee) chair at one point, and people just know I have a heart for the kids, and I'm not going to give up on our schools. We can do better. We have to do better, for our children's sake. But I've had many teachers say that sometimes they're concerned how dollars are being spent in their districts, and they see where they could be better spent, or they shouldn't be spent on certain things.
But I do know the (Department of) Health and Social Services’ budget is a big one, and there have been instances in Alaska and across the country where we know things are — we're paying people in the private sector for services where we are getting the shaft, and we shouldn't be paying. They’re billing when they shouldn't be.
And that's not going to impact essential services to Alaskans and the health care industry. Hundreds of millions of dollars. I am guessing, if we find a half a billion in money that shouldn't be going out, I'm guessing a lot of it's going to be in that arena.
I don't know for sure, but these are estimates just basically across the country. I should be able to quote a source for you for that, but it's based on a certain percentage of a state's overall budget. So that's where that estimate comes (from). It could be less than that, Eric. I mean, it could be $300 million. It could be more. It could be $1.6 billion instead of $1.5. I don't know. I just know that it's our job to root it out, and the best way is through a thorough audit.
Finance committees, they cannot do it in 90 days or 120 days. They don't have the wherewithal. They don't have the staff. It doesn't work. They are the final appropriators, and they need that information. And that's the beauty of the sunset audit commission. It's not going to work for the governor. It's not going to work for the Legislature. It's working for the people. It's going to be an independent, objective entity. But the information — the next governor and future governors will be able to use it to help build their budgets as well. It'll be a wonderful tool for the legislators and the finance committees to make their decisions.
And my experience with audits, the legislative audits, very rarely, very rarely did it become controversial and bipartisan. If the auditor had a recommendation of how to do it better, as someone who's objective, we took the auditor's advice and made it happen. So I think it is a very, very good method, and there was a lot of interest when I held hearings on it. It was a buzz in the building on both sides of the aisle, maybe for different reasons. A lot of it was for the transparency's sake and the public process. It'd be a whole year-long process. The sunset audit commission would take on an agency, and so it'd be very transparent what's going on. So I think that's important for the public. So I don't know that magic number, but I know it's the right thing to do, is to root out that kind of money that shouldn't be going where it is.
You've said you want to protect the Permanent Fund dividend in the state Constitution. You've also called for what you describe as a fair PFD. I'm curious what a fair PFD means. Like, what's a reasonable amount that Alaskans should be able to expect each year?
You know, going back to Jay Hammond, he wanted the PFD so that the government wouldn't gobble all that money up. But interestingly, there was also Milton Friedman, a renowned Nobel Prize-winning economist, and his concept and why he thought the PFD was a good idea, because it would help grow the private sector. And we all know that we are imbalanced. That's one of our struggles, especially also being solely reliant, pretty much, on oil and gas revenue. But we have a relatively small private sector compared to our cost of government. So growing the private sector is important.
The PFD has been known as one of the reasons — and maybe even the key reason — why we have so many small businesses per capita in the state. At one point, I was in the House at the time, we had the highest number of small businesses per capita in the nation, and the PFD played a role in that. Because you have a family of four or five, and they can pool that money and start a business or invest it to grow their business. Because the typical small business loan is around $10,000. And so a family bringing in a PFD — and families were using it for that.
I think that it's an important part of our private sector, and we definitely need to grow the private sector. A PFD dollar in the private sector has a greater multiplier effect than a PFD dollar in government.
So my commitment is to build the PFD. I think expanding the tax base is the best way. But not just expanding the tax base with more oil and gas. I'm talking about with different types of industries, so we have a more stable fiscal environment instead of one that goes up and down with world markets. So that's very important. And when we do that and work on getting our fiscal house in order, we're not going to snap our fingers and fix this, but I think we can resolve it.
My goal ultimately, Eric, is to go back. You think about the first 30 years of the PFD, it was not an issue. In fact, initially it didn't even travel through the Legislature, and that's where I'd like to return. It was simply calculated. The Alaska Permanent Fund Corp. transferred the dollars over to the Department of Revenue, and the Department of Revenue issued checks. That was back in the day when they'd mail them. And it wasn't a hot potato. It wasn't a political football in the Legislature. And if we can grow our economy and stabilize it, and get our revenue situation in better shape, and have effective and efficient agencies, I would love it — absolutely love it — to get it back where it's totally out of the Legislature's hands and it's just a transfer from the Permanent Fund Corp. to the Department of Revenue. So that's my ultimate goal.
You asked what a fair PFD would be. Of course, with inflation, things change. But I do think that we don't have subsurface rights, and when you think about government spending, not everybody benefits equally from government spending.
Sometimes big contractors, they make big bucks, based on the spending and the capital budget and stuff. And then you have other people that — I'm just thinking of, well, the people that rely on the (Department of) Health and Social Services, those funds, right? So you have different populations. Someone who is a big hunter and fisher, they're going to benefit from the state funds that are used in the Department of Fish and Game, right? But not everyone benefits from everything equally, and I guess that PFD kind of makes up for that in a way. But really the positive for me is how it's going to help grow our private sector, and I think that is important. It's key.
I want to move on to education. You talked a little bit about the Alaska Reads Act, but I wanted to dig in a little bit more on your approach to education. You’ve backed school choice options like charter school and homeschool, and you also say that Alaska's school districts should not receive more state funding until schools can improve student outcomes.
At the same time, though, districts across the state are cutting back programs, closing schools. So I guess I'm just interested in your approach to education, and sort of the answer to the specific question: how can schools improve without funding to reduce class sizes, offer new programs, or invest in new teaching techniques, things like that?
So we need to be honest and transparent about what's happening. The number of children has declined, and that is very much playing into why the districts have fewer funds and are needing to close schools. And the cost of running those schools, the energy costs, the food for lunches, etc., it's all higher, right? So I understand that.
But when our outcomes, when we are at the bottom of the pile, when only 30% of our kids are on grade level and 70% across the state are on or below grade level, and you have schools where less than 10%, less than 7%, are on grade level, we have to do what's right. We have to focus on improving academic outcomes, and that must come first. And making sure the funds are targeted to proven instructional strategies, that's what's so important.
And one of my last, I think it may have been my very last piece of business that I did in the session in 2025, was I filed the Alaska Math Act. So, mathematics. And I didn't know that I was going to run for governor — I was thinking about it, I didn't know — so I thought I'd be back to work on it, and I wanted to get it out there because it's important. It's similar to the Reads Act as far as how it works, and the accountability and ensuring that children are mastering objectives at each grade level. I also know that we need a little time to get the Reads Act fully functional, but the Math Act is the next step. And I'm happy that a couple legislators did file that bill after I left the Senate to run full time for governor. But I see that as one of the answers and how we get kids back on track.
As far as school choice, the important thing (is), we need to be honest. The research shows that school choice actually helps neighborhood public schools. It does not hurt them. You do not have a mass exodus of kids moving out of the neighborhood schools. Neighborhood schools will always be necessary. I had my children in public schools all around the state. In a village, particularly, probably (is) not going to have a private school set up.
But I will tell you this. Not only is the number of children declining, families are just smaller, and young working families are moving away, right? So we've got to go back to fixing the economy, so the young families that have children don't (move) away, and that will help the districts.
But we also should not fear school choice. We should not fear school choice. It's about the children's learning. And I would ask the question of anyone who is opposed to school choice: I'd say, how can you deny a child the right to the best learning environment for that child? So if the traditional neighborhood classroom is not a good learning environment, is not a good fit for a child, why would you want to keep that child in that school? Or if in a local community there's a school that has a different emphasis that would work better than the one that's closest to that child's house, why would you not want that child to be able to go to a school that would best meet his or her needs?
So we need to have an open mind about this. And what’s happening is, I believe it's, I want to say 17 states that have embraced school choice. The data is now showing, and some of them have been — there's a couple of them been doing it a number of years — 12 years, I think, one state. So it's been enough years to show what actually happens is school choice lifts all boats. So for that child, that the family wants a different kind of learning environment that's better for that child, their learning outcomes improve. But guess what? The school that they pulled that child out from, (at) that school, the outcomes also improve.
Now, why is that? Two reasons. First of all, the school is going to work hard so that a bunch of parents don't pull their kids out. That's number one. So, competition. But number two, that teacher who had that child where it wasn't a good fit, that was taking a lot of that teacher's time, because especially when they're younger, a child who's not engaged in learning can be disruptive. And so now we have this teacher focused on this child, and all the other children are missing out. Once that child is moved out into a better learning environment, that teacher is able to focus on his or her other students. So there's more than one reason why the neighborhood school improves, but it does. And so we need to stop the lie that school choice is going to decimate the neighborhood schools. It has not happened in other states, and it will not happen here.
We have families where both parents work. They're going to need that neighborhood school. We also have charter schools who are actually focusing on low-income children and providing buses, and there's a way to do that as well. So I embrace all options. Whatever works for a child. I went to public school. It worked for me. My children went to public school. It worked for them. But it is not working for some families.
And I will tell you, I'm also going to just say it right up: a lot of families do not want some of the woke stuff that's being taught in schools, and that's why they're pulling them out. So the districts may want to rethink that they focus on the academics. They might not have families.
I was at a — down in, I can't remember, it's 35 minutes, I think, from Homer, and it's a Russian community, and they had a beautiful little public school. And what happened, because of the agenda and the curriculum and what was happening there — I think the school had 100, 150 students or something. Over the last number of years, it went down to eight students. The families were pulling their children out. So now they had to close down the school, and the district was going to have to pay and maintain it. Well, what happened is, those families formed a charter school, and now they're leasing that school. And the families, they still have standards, state objectives. They still, it's not going to be a free-for-all. They have to actually teach the children the academics. But so that building will be used.
But part of it was, the districts need to wake up and say, what are you teaching? What is your emphasis? Let's try to take the biases out. I know it's difficult, but let's get back to just the basics and not try to throw political agendas into our school districts. I think you'd have fewer families pulling their kids out. So districts need to think long and hard about that.
But I believe that public schools aren't going to go away completely, like people fear right now. I think it's a power and control thing, and I really don't care about the power and control thing. I care about the kids. I care about the children learning. And if a child is thriving in a neighborhood public school, they need to stay there. But if the child is not, they need to have options. And that's what this conversation is about, and I do not appreciate the fearmongering that (the National Education Association) has done. It's not helpful for our kids.
We need to focus on the children and their learning, because these kids need to be equipped to be successful as adults. They need to be equipped so they'll stay in the state. We've got a lot of things, Eric, we have to fix simultaneously, but our schools are definitely one of them. And my heart is for the kids. That's the bottom line for me.
And the teachers — your listeners should know, I had amendment after amendment to route funding to teachers. Because research shows if it goes to the classroom and it goes to the teacher, learning improves. So I am not anti-teachers. I am for the teachers. They need more autonomy and they need the funding directed to them. They need to have decision-making authority about how the funds are used in their classroom.
So we are almost out of time. We have just a couple minutes left, and I want to close with one final question, which is: the primary is just days away, and I'm curious, what is your message to primary voters in these closing moments of the primary campaign. And specifically why you, Shelley Hughes, rather than some of your challengers like Dave Bronson or Bernadette Wilson or Treg Taylor or some of the other Republicans in the race? And then also, how would you approach the ranked choice general election?
Well, I am going to be governor for all Alaskans. I had a prominent Democrat come out with an endorsement the other day. I did actually, when I launched my campaign, have Democrats attend, undeclareds, across the spectrum. I am conservative, but I've won repeatedly. I've won eight — six elections, and I have a track record.
And that can sound like rhetoric, but what it means is you can actually look at my positions and you can look at my accomplishments. When someone doesn't have that, you can listen to what they say, and you'd hope they do what they say and would be effective. But you don't really know that, and you would take a risk.
When you bring in someone who's proven it and has experience and understands the issues. You know what I said when I campaigned, I stuck to and did. I'm consistent, so you kind of know what you're going to get up front. You take a risk with other candidates. And so that's what I would say to voters.
I think what I bring to the table is a skill set of being able to get things done, and an understanding of the issues statewide in every region. And yesterday we just announced a very exciting initiative that's based on my prior work in the Legislature on the eastern border of Alaska and the western border. And that was, I carried the successful resolution for the presidential permit for the rail crossing, the A2A, the Alaska to Alberta crossing. But I also brokered the deal for 175 million in state funds for the Port of Nome, which then was matched with federal funds, and that project is underway.
Right now, Russia controls 90% of the ships passing through the Arctic shipping lanes. We need to tip the globe, Eric. We need to rotate the globe and stop looking at it from the side, at North America, where Alaska's tucked up to the left corner. We need to rotate the globe and look at it from the top and understand that over the next decades, our destiny is to become an intercontinental transportation and commerce hub. We are positioned. We are as close to Europe as Boston. We are the closest in North America to the Asian markets, to Japan. We need to take our rightful place.
We need to take advantage of the Port of Nome and that crossing, and we need to bring the rail not just from Canada up to our current rail system, but we need to shoot that rail all the way up to the Port of Nome. We would then be connected from the Lower 48. It would be a port that could export to Europe and Asia. Instead of sending things to the East Coast in that route, it would be tremendous for our state. It would allow lower-cost goods and products for rural areas where that rail would pass.
This is not a boondoggle. I'm not talking about the state funding this. Just like on the Canadian side, private investors are stepping up. We will welcome — I will provide the opportunity, working with the Canadian government, but also working with private investors, to look at doing this. Part of this is also completing the Northern Rail Extension, very important for Fort Greely, and the Mat-Su Rail Extension, which I understand there is going to be some news about some federal rail money for that project.
These are the kinds of things that we need to get this economy rocking and rolling, to grow our private sector, to be a state where young people want to stay and raise their families. So we're very pragmatic. Our website is more comprehensive, with action steps, a real plan. Like I said, I despise slogans and rhetoric. We are ready to do the work. So very pragmatic, very practical, very feasible, but also a visionary. And that's a bit unusual, to have someone who is both a visionary but is also very practical. So we're going to take this one step at a time, but we've got to think big. It's time to think big. And with retired General Gettys, we are ready to be at the helm. We are ready to help Alaska step into its destiny and turn this state around, get it back on track. And I guess that's a good pun to say when you're talking about a rail line from the Canadian border all the way to Nome.
But it is time, Eric, for us to take the steps that we need to take to be really strong. And I'll just say, this concept, the rail to Nome, is not brand new. Jack Coghill had plans and hopes to see that happen. It didn't happen in his lifetime. I don't know how quickly it can happen, but that's where we need to go. We need to think big, and we need to be practical along the way. So go to my website, see how thorough it is. We don't have information yet about what I'm calling the Panama Canal of the 21st century — and actually the more convenient Panama Canal of the 21st century, as we don't have a Strait of Hormuz, we have a wide-open ocean. We can do this, and it's time to stop thinking about Alaska as being at the end, like we're the end of the road. Alaska needs to be the door to the globe. We should be the transportation hub for the Northern Hemisphere, and it's time to start working towards that.
So we bring a lot to the table. It's up to Alaskans whether they want to choose the skill set that we offer, whether they want to choose the practical action plan that we have, and the vision, the long-term vision that we have. But we're ready to do the work, and we're ready to buckle down and get things done.
I also say I have an organization, the most robust grassroots organization. Our funds are at a rate of 64 Alaskans to one outside dollar. We see a lot of lopsided, where other campaigns are very much supported by outsiders. Ours is not. Ours is a grassroots organization. We don't have everyone volunteering. I've got professionals. I've got people with expertise that have run statewide, been involved with statewide campaigns at the management level. Professionals, people in communications, graphic design, attorneys. I mean, I've got the whole deal. We've got smart people, and we're not just working to win. We are working to govern well, and we have white papers written. We have plans lined up. What we're going to do in the first month, what needs to go through the Legislature. We're thinking big and long term on this. There's a lot of work to do, and I'd be very honored to have the vote of any of the listeners out there.
We ask you to think of two words, two words that rhyme, when you walk into the voting booth. You only get to choose one. So when you walk into the voting booth on Aug. 18, I ask you to choose Hughes.
