Back 
Juneau voters selected former Assemblymember Merrill Sanford as their choice for mayor in Tuesday’s municipal election, endorsing a man with nine years of experience on the City and Borough of Juneau Assembly and strong ties to Juneau’s business community.
Sanford defeated his only opponent, League of Women Voters Treasurer Cheryl Jebe, with 3,334 votes to Jebe’s 2,674. He performed strongly in the Mendenhall Valley and Lemon Creek and carried one Juneau precinct, Juneau #3, by six votes.
“Our town voted basically the way it has voted for a number of years now,” Sanford said, assessing the voting patterns of the city and borough. He said he performed fairly well downtown, which he credited to his years of Assembly service making him familiar to voters.
Sanford said he is “happy the way things have turned out.”
Juneau voters have been casting in-person absentee ballots since Sept. 17. Those ballots were not included in Tuesday’s Election Night vote count, nor were questioned ballots cast at a polling place outside the voter’s precinct.
“We have over 1,000 absentee ballots,” said Laurie Sica, city clerk. There are exactly 400 questioned ballots, according to a count available Tuesday night.
Despite the 660-vote margin by which she is trailing, Jebe said she is waiting until absentee and questioned ballots are tallied Friday before conceding the race.
“I’m going to wait until the absentees are counted,” said Jebe.
As to whether those ballots could make up the margin, Jebe said, “I have no idea. … This is Alaska. You never know.”
In Assembly District 1, voters preferred Loren Jones to Paul Nowlin. Jones, who fell just short of being elected over now-Assemblymember Carlton Smith last year, carried every precinct in his second bid for Assembly, winning 3,223 votes to 1,934 cast for Nowlin.
Jones compared the feeling of being elected to a student’s first day of school — “both excited that you’re there and scared to death,” as he put it.
“I’m just really glad that the municipal campaigns are short,” Jones added.
Former Juneau Police Capt. Jerry Nankervis easily fended off a late write-in challenge from Dixie Hood in District 2. Not enough write-in votes were cast for them to be counted individually under city code, though Hood was the only certified write-in candidate in the race. Nankervis won 3,661 votes, to just 738 write-in votes.
“I’m pleased that I garnered the support that I did,” Nankervis said.
In the race to fill three seats on the Juneau School District Board of Education, incumbents Andrea “Andi” Story and Phyllis Carlson won easily, with 3,740 and 2,990 votes respectively. Former school board member Destiny Sargeant was also elected with 2,639 votes.
“I’m thrilled,” said Sargeant. “I can’t wait to roll up my sleeves and get on with it.”
For her part, Story said, “I’m really pleased to be back and ready to work hard.” She also praised school district staff and parents and added, “I just picture really good things for our district.”
Candidate Will Muldoon placed a respectable fourth, with 2,094 votes — 545 votes behind Sargeant, who placed third.
Running her first race since moving to Juneau in late 2010, school board candidate Michelle Johnston came in fifth, with 1,660 votes.
Of the two ballot propositions, while Proposition 2, the five-year extension of the 1 percent temporary sales tax, passed easily, the results for Proposition 1, to authorize a $25 million general obligation bond issue, were close throughout much of the night.
“Yes” on Proposition 1 clung to a narrow lead with 12 out of 13 precincts reporting. But in a dramatic turn, when the 13th precinct, Mendenhall Valley #2, reported in, the “no” votes overtook “yes,” with 3,094 “no” votes to 3,037 votes in favor.
Jones and Jebe said they are hoping the absentee and questioned ballots are enough to put Proposition 1 over the top, while Nankervis said he would prefer that the proposition fail.
Proposition 2 succeeded with 3,573 “yes” votes to 2,599 votes against, meaning the sales tax will be extended from October 2013 to October 2018.
Voter turnout was 25.4 percent of registered voters, though that number will increase as absentee and questioned ballots are added into the count.
“The voter turnout is just terrible,” said Jones.
Sica agreed that it was lower than she had hoped, remarking, “I wish we had a bigger turnout.”
But Nankervis said it was actually “higher than I expected.” He said he believes it was driven not by interest in his race, but by passion over the ballot propositions.
All results are still preliminary and unofficial pending certification. The results are set to be certified next Tuesday.
• Contact reporter Mark D. Miller at 523-2279 or at mark.d.miller@juneauempire.com.
Comments (86)
Add commentPaul, changes to the tax could be made
I believe the sales tax code, specifically (not addressing the property tax here) could be made such that fixed income seniors would not be harmed. If sales tax exempted basic food stuffs, such as the items allowable under the food stamp program, for everyone, the seniors that have limited means, my parents included, would still enjoy the exemption of the items that they must have, while also giving young families a break that would increase Juneau's livability for them as well.
A change like that would mean that purchases such as plants at don Abel's or a new vacuum at Fred meyer's wouldn't be exempt for seniors, but those types of purchases are relatively infrequent and typically something purchased more frequently by people with more resources.
I believe a better balance could be struck in the way we assess the tax to all people who have limited incomes.
Missed it again
We are doing well so far on prop 1; let's hope it fails. as far as prop 2, the sale tax extension, we missed Yet another chance to rein in City spending.
We need to drop the senior sale tax exemption and eliminate sale tax on food.
It is the senior voting block that have ruled this last election. They have no skin in the game with their exemption. Eliminate that and we would see sales tax on food disappear and sales tax reduced.
@FMAST50
I am with you on that. I only disagreed with solely doing away with the senior exemption. Adjustments like you proposed I am not against; however, I would suggest the math be done before a final decision were ever made on such a thing; but if the math looked good I think you have a good solution there. I want to see NEEDS such as groceries be exempt from sales tax for everyone. I think that other fat could have been trimmed to allow this to happen without taxing senior sales tax, for example, we are looking to build several new buildings; which if we need to tax groceries and seniors to do so, I am against some of the projects. Of course, Juneau voted that we should go ahead and build the new structures and have the next generations pay for them; so I guess I have to support the communities decision. Now that we voted that way, we cannot expect to see taxes or fees reduced, we spent the money, now we have a bill to pay. All I heard from people was that their property taxes were too high, but the propositions were passed and will raise the property taxes again in 5 years; so I do not know if people were voting blindly, or I randomly only talked to people that were struggling.
Either way, don't expect to see groceries become exempt, if they do...hooray!!...but that money is going to have to come from somewhere now, otherwise there would be shortfalls. So while I agree with your stance, I do not see it happening with prop 1 & 2 being passed the way they were written. Also, I do not think the senior exemption being taken away would balance the whole City being exempt from groceries even without seeing any figures. I could be wrong; the last portion of this post is mostly guesses.
@AKJustice
Correction to my last post, AKJustice is correct, I forgot that prop 1 is still up in air; but in my post above, I said it passed.
fmast, I was talking about politics
Nothing I said was disgusting and personally offensive in the way your comment was. You should be ashamed of even thinking such things about people.
BTW, I have a job and have had for most of my life
You do NOT speak for all employed people. Nor even for most.
Most people with jobs or with some measure of personal success understand that, with all their efforts, they are also very, very lucky, and that none of us are entitled to viciously judge or dismiss those who have had less luck in life.
Any day, any moment, ANY of us could end up on the street sleeping in a cardboard box. No one is so inherently superior that she or he can say that would never happen to them.
It's all a crapshoot, and the dice could go against any of us at any time.
Nor am I entitled to viciously judge or dismiss those
who have had more luck in life.
No one is so inherently superior that she or he can say that would never happen to them.
Ken,
Wake up and smell the roses, Ya really need to do some personel assesment! Having a job, and everything that goes with it, education, personal appearance, a good attitude, the ability to function at what one wishes to do, being well grounded, ect have little to nothing to do with luck. It takes preparedness and willingness to perform that lets one succeed in life. Letting luck take over is like playing the games in Los Vegas, in the end all that do that are, in reality, losers. You will never be taken seriously as long as what you post makes no sense! Life is not a "crapshoot" and as long as you think it is? You lose!
Well said alaskabobc, you nailed it!
When you said: "You will never be taken seriously as long as what you post makes no sense!"
And don't forget to smell the coffee along the way either Kenb41
@ Ken
Local hire ordinance to force the local companies to hire from the Juneau pool is not going to work. There are a lot of jobs in Juneau now that cannot find folks to work them. Ask Home Depot how the local hire thing went. Several hundred applications and 60% failed the pee drug test. I would hope that the mine would hire those people who have gone to school and received some kind of a degree before they get a high paying job. The mine will also drug test potential employees and that will eliminate a lot of the gene pool from Juneau.
The mines do hire locally
Ken doesn't know what he's talking about. The fact is the mine is training and hiring every local they can. There are several Juneau vets, young men who have just returned home from serving in Afghanistan, that are training to work at the mine right now.
alaska: I agree,I was tweeking KenB's statement to make a point.
A little quick off the diving board?
I would add, though, that some 'luck' (as we refer to it) is indeed a factor in life. It does not matter how well one plans and prepares some things are out of our control for the most part. Say genetical terminal diseases and economic train wrecks?
Or perhaps having the good fortune of meeting one's soul mate which can turn a life around or give it purpose.
I would not take 'luck' out of it entirely.
I take it you were addressing my post, and not KenB's.
KenB: Are you getting how they are deflecting off you onto me?
KenB: By the way...Really want to make a difference for the
workers of Juneau (not enjoying a miner's wages)? Fight for a living wage. I think we could do better than $7.75 an hour.
Tikitime: Home Depot's 'pee test' follows federal guidelines.
It does not reflect Alaska Statutes regarding pot.
It is a national Corporate structure, one guided by the war on drugs...
If you don't vote you have no
If you don't vote you have no room to cry about who is elected.
"I have solved this political
"I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created." - George Carlin
I've always been for a living wage, and I AM a worker.
I haven't said anything that only a non-worker could have said. Thank you for endorsing the living wage yourself, Ken D.
A living wage AND a municipal local hire law...both desperately needed. It doesn't help any workers here if jobs are created but then given to people imported temporarily from somewhere else.
And we really need to dial back the "pee tests"
There was no good reason to have such tests for somebody who was going to be a cashier at Home Despot. And there's little need for those at a mine(it's enough to have a "no using on the job" policy, like the no drinking on the job).
A person fails a pee test(I've passed every one I ever took in my job, before you ask, so I have no personal grievance here)if they smoked a joint 20 or even sometimes 30 days earlier. Somebody who already committed to going pot-free in the last month can still be barred from employment or even lose a job they've performed competently just because the test was administered too early. And those tests don't often detect the presence of REALLY dangerous drugs, like cocaine(It would be far more dangerous to have a coked-up miner than one who'd got baked three weeks earlier).
If people aren't barred from work for drinking themselves blind each night after they punch out(and there are thousands of PRIVATE SECTOR employees and even employers who do that, as everyone here would have to admit), they shouldn't be for smoking the occasional joint on the weekend. Pot isn't meth, coke, pcp or heroin.
The whole War on Drugs thing never really worked. It obsessed on pot to the exclusion of truly dangerous drugs like coke, meth or speed. It discourages people from getting drug treatment(which means it makes it harder for people to give up drugs, and some people DO need to give up all drugs including pot), and by barring people from employment, it prevents former drug users from getting their lives back together.
Other than being a jobs program for cops, "zero tolerance" and the War on Drugs have been total failures.
Drugs are a social issue, NOT a law enforcement issue. And they aren't worth keeping huge numbers of people who want to work out of work.
Sorry for the digression, but a real response was needed to the post above.
I shall wait for a "real" response,
If one has a job, or wants a job, and the criteria is that one must pass a drug test, what the helI is so hard to understand about that? You just don’t do the drug, period and simple. If the drug means more to you than employment? Well, Ya get what Ya sow. Also simple and understandable. It is called “follow the rules”
Not everyone knows how long you need to wait to get a clean test
Your position pretty much makes it unforgiveable for anybody to ever have used drugs, and making past drug use a permanent stigma on someone takes away any incentive for anyone to STOP using.
If you're still a pariah even when you get clean, why would anyone bother?
It's more than enough to say don't be stoned at work(it should be the exact same policy most companies-other than the occasional commercial airline, for some reason-have for drinking on the job. Pot isn't WORSE than alcohol.)
And respond to this, if you will...
Why should pot smokers be treated any differently in the job market than people who get drunk every night after work? A lot of people who use pot on an occasional basis have their lives far more together than nightly binge drinkers, after all.
Why should pot and booze be treated differently at all? After all, any cop will tell you that people who are buzzed are far easier to deal with than drunks in law enforcement situations.
There's little reason to make passing a pee test for pot a requirement for eligibility for work. Making it such a requirement gives potential employers far too much control over the private lives of potential workers. What you do off the clock should almost never be your boss's business(with the obvious exceptions, such as if you kill or rape somebody).
In the overwhelming majority of cases, pot use is not a valid reason to disqualify someone from employment. As long as you aren't stoned on the job, it has no effect on your work.
And just because somebody with money says "follow the rules"
doesn't automatically make the rules unchallengable or undebatable. Or even moral.
This is the problem with tying freedom to property-it gives those who happen to own property(a group that will always be a minority in any country)the right to restrict the freedom of those who don't-it means that freedom will always be unequal(which, of course, means that freedom doesn't exist at all, because freedom is only freedom if all are equally free).
At some level, citizenship and rights have to include the notion of human equality...no country run on the concept that "those who OWN the country ought to govern it" can be truly free. Giving more freedom to property-owners than to everyone else means creating a feudal society.
We should have an ordinance barring pee tests
for jobs that don't involve operating dangerous equipment...and giving people in need of work a second chance to pass such a test if they didn't know how long pot stays in your system after use when they took the first test
I'd also say that drug testers should be required to tell people in advance how long each drug stays in your system after use, to be fair to those who are trying to get off drugs, or even get off pot, and get back into the workplace.
"Zero tolerance" and the drug war accomplish nothing. They are kept going solely because those who defend them refuse to admit to the futility of the effort...it's the Vietnam mindset all over again, only this time at home.
Drug treatment works. Drug user busts don't.
And getting the local jobless back to work is MUCH more important than enforcing rules. Rules shouldn't be used to deny second chances to those who need them.
One more point...
This issue of personal use of pot in Alaska has been tested by the Supreme Court and found not to warrant state intrusion following our State Constitution's emphasis on privacy.
If Home Depot is requiring drug tests, and I assume sporadic testing is conducted during employment, and denying employment or terminating employees on this basis then Home Depot is not in compliance.
Well said, KD II.
This issue was settled already.