September 17, 2026, by John Fraser, Seward Folly

This November, voters will choose a successor to our Senate District C Representative, retiring Senate President Gary Stevens.

Senate District C is one of Alaska’s largest and most geographically diverse districts, spanning 16,271 square miles, with a coastal economy and social conditions distinct from the rest of the state. About 38,000 year-round residents live across the district, from Kodiak Island and Cordova, to Seward/Lowell Point, Kasilof, Ninilchik, Homer, Seldovia, and the Kachemak Bay communities that make up House Districts 5 and 8.

For Folly readers from the Tern Lake Y to Lowell Point, knowing which Senate district you belong to matters. Moose Pass and Bear Creek fall in Senate District D, making up about 6.5% of that district’s roughly 4,116 registered voters. Seward–Lowell Point’s 1,856 voters are in District C, this article’s focus, making up 5.8% of that district’s electorate. Actual turnout is typically closer to 78% of registered voters, (see Seward Folly article; Analyzing the primary results) but each area’s share of its district’s electorate will be about the same. In theory, this split means two of the 20 state senators represent our region’s concerns. In practice, neither would be under much pressure to prioritize the greater Seward community’s interests unless the race is unusually close.

As one of only 20 members of the Alaska Senate, the District C officeholder will have significant influence over state spending, education funding, transportation and marine infrastructure, fisheries policy, housing programs, and confirmation of officials who will be appointed by the new governor.

We reached out to the three District C candidates, Carrie Harris, Heath Smith, and Louise Stutes, all registered Republicans, on issues facing the greater Seward/Eastern Kenai area, including some questions touching both District C and District D. Their responses reveal some differences: Stutes favors bipartisan coalition-building, Smith offers a challenge to her record, and Harris takes the strongest smaller-government, full-PFD, anti-tax, anti-trawling stance, showing that shared party affiliation doesn’t tell the whole story. Notably, while District C decisions can affect neighboring communities like Bear Creek and Moose Pass, which fall under District D, none of the candidates directly addressed how they’d collaborate with a District D counterpart on shared concerns.

Photos of Carrie Harris and Louise Stutes provided by the candidates.

The following are their responses to our questions:

1. Lessons from the primary:

All three candidates saw the primary as proof their message is landing, and all are planning more outreach to voters before November. Harris said her message resonates with those who hear it, but needs wider reach. Smith called the results a sign of openness to change and dissatisfaction with Alaska’s “managed decline.” Stutes cited strong primary results, crediting her name recognition and record, but did not discount the need for more outreach across the district.

2. What independent and nonpartisan voters should know

All three candidates said they would put the interests of District C residents ahead of party loyalty. Each described their ability or willingness to work across political lines while evaluating issues on their merits.

Harris: Harris said she would represent residents rather than lobbyists and would work across party lines when doing so benefits the district. She emphasized three positions: removing trawl gear from Alaska waters, paying the full Permanent Fund Dividend, and strengthening personal privacy protections. She specifically opposed surveillance technologies that could track people visiting churches, gun stores, public meetings or protests.

Smith: Smith emphasized independent thinking, respectful discussion and openness to perspectives that challenge personal biases. He said he is not running to advance a “political club” and identified energy costs, education, fisheries, infrastructure, public safety and fiscal policy as practical priorities. He also promised to explain his votes and support useful proposals regardless of their political origin.

Stutes: Stutes asked voters to judge her by her legislative record rather than her campaign promises. She pointed to her participation in multiparty House majority coalitions and said she has consistently placed her district ahead of party demands. Her response emphasized demonstrated legislative experience and coalition building rather than introducing a separate list of policy positions.

3. Representing independent and nonpartisan concerns

The candidates agreed that independent and nonpartisan constituents should receive the same consideration as every other voter. All three said policies should be evaluated according to their effects on residents rather than their conformity with a party platform.

Harris: Harris gave the most direct response: she would evaluate every policy according to how it benefits district residents and not according to its alignment with a political party.

Smith: Smith connected his approach to six years of service on the nonpartisan Homer City Council. He promised to remain accessible, seek public input before significant votes, and communicate honestly about policy tradeoffs. He also criticized legislative attention to caucus organization, committee assignments, and leadership positions when those concerns interfere with addressing public needs.

Stutes: Stutes emphasized building coalitions across party lines. She said she would assess proposals on their merits, consult constituents, and work with legislators willing to set party politics aside.

4. Affordability and divided politics

All three candidates connected household affordability to systems that the state can influence rather than to a single retail price. Harris focused on transportation and freight infrastructure, Smith on energy supply, and Stutes on housing and the state’s fiscal system. Smith and Stutes explicitly called for work across party lines; Harris argued that port modernization could attract broad agreement because lower freight costs benefit every community.

Harris: Harris identified shipping costs as her first priority. Because groceries, clothing and construction materials arrive through Alaska’s ports, she argued that inefficient or expensive port operations raise prices throughout the economy. Her proposed response is to modernize ports and remove freight bottlenecks.

Smith: Smith identified energy as the central affordability issue because it affects heating, electricity, freight, groceries, fishing, tourism and business growth. He supports securing a dependable in-state natural-gas supply and considering hydroelectric development where economically justified. He also argued that the Legislature missed an opportunity by failing to establish a workable tax framework that might have advanced the Alaska LNG project. He acknowledged that the project’s costs and projected revenues require scrutiny.

Stutes: Stutes pointed to interconnected pressures including housing, shipping, fuel, groceries, healthcare and childcare, proposing legislation to encourage affordable-housing construction, better financing for first-time buyers, state-local land exchanges, and possibly direct state investment, while acknowledging the delegation of short-term rental regulation to cities and boroughs. She said she supports heating-fuel subsidies or energy-relief payments amid rising fuel costs. She framed these within a call for a long-term fiscal plan, arguing that inconsistent state funding has weakened education, childcare, healthcare, transportation, public assistance, revenue sharing, capital spending, and PFD payments while shifting costs onto municipalities and local taxpayers.

5. Actions addressing Eastern Kenai challenges

All three candidates identified transportation infrastructure and fisheries as important to the Seward region. Smith and Stutes also connected local problems to statewide fiscal decisions. Harris and Stutes specifically discussed improving the responsiveness of state government or agencies to local needs.

Harris: Harris proposed maintaining reliable transportation routes, protecting fisheries, stabilizing port and road infrastructure, and removing state-level administrative obstacles that delay local projects and repairs. Her answer emphasized making state agencies more responsive and keeping essential systems operating.

Smith: Smith presented Eastern Kenai’s challenges as consequences of Alaska’s lack of a durable fiscal plan. He identified education, the Alaska Marine Highway System, roads, fisheries management, public safety, and the PFD as services affected by recurring budget instability. His proposed priorities are dependable energy, transportation and maritime infrastructure, education funding, improved fisheries-management outcomes, reduced long-term debt costs, and conditions that encourage private investment and new revenue.

Stutes: Stutes outlined the most extensive list of specific proposals, including increasing and stabilizing K–12 funding, funding school construction and major maintenance, encouraging affordable-housing development through legislation, financing, land exchanges, and state investment, pursuing a larger capital budget for municipal, road, fire, healthcare and other infrastructure, supporting the Alaska SeaLife Center and infrastructure serving fisheries and tourism, and seeking the restoration of Alaska Marine Highway System service to Seward. She noted that legislation she sponsored while serving in the House required that the new Seward dock accommodate the side-loading ferries used by the Marine Highway System, and said she has started preliminary discussions with the Department of Transportation about restoring service.

6. Addressing the State of Public Education

All three candidates said a greater share of education resources should reach teachers and classrooms. Each recognized that teachers are working under difficult conditions and that education affects Alaska’s ability to retain families and workers. Their disagreement concerns whether the central problem is inadequate state funding, administrative allocation, or the absence of new state revenue.

Harris: Harris argued that the principal problem is not insufficient state funding. She claimed the current system directs too much money to administration. She would redirect existing funds into classrooms, curricula, core academics, and vocational education. She said she supports school vouchers, allowing families to use public support to choose among public, charter, and private educational options.

Smith: Smith supports predictable state funding and directing more money into classrooms. Drawing on his recent experience as a substitute teacher, he described committed educators working amid declining enrollment, competition for qualified staff, family outmigration, and increased use of alternative educational options. He cautioned that additional education spending must be considered within the state’s broader fiscal limits. His response tied sustainable school funding to economic development and new revenue, particularly the potential Alaska LNG project.

Stutes: Stutes identified inadequate funding as the central problem and made the most explicit commitment to increase it, citing her votes for Base Student Allocation increases, one-time education appropriations, overrides of gubernatorial vetoes, and school construction and maintenance funding. Her proposed actions include increasing education funding, keeping it aligned with inflation, directing more money into classrooms, forward-funding education to improve predictability, improving the teacher retirement system, and funding school construction and major maintenance. She also described education funding as a top priority for the incoming Legislature and governor, saying accountability and policy reform should accompany any additional funding.

Positions that most clearly distinguish each campaign

While no single issue set all three apart, Harris stood out for her specific conservative positions, Smith for his critique of the incumbent’s record, and Stutes for her push on education funding and coalition-based legislative approach.

Harris: Harris identified opposition to trawl fishing as her first major distinction. Her second distinction combined opposition to an income tax and an S-corporation pass-through tax with support for greater resource development, a full statutory PFD, and a public vote on constitutionally protecting the dividend. She also advocated for continued reductions to government spending and eliminating programs or expenditures she regards as unnecessary.

Smith: Smith described accountability for legislative outcomes as the clearest difference. He contrasted his campaign with Stutes’ record in legislative majorities and leadership, attributing continued fiscal instability and uncertainty in public services partly to that record. He presented himself as an alternative, placing greater urgency on energy development, economic growth, control of debt and long-term costs, classroom and parental concerns, fisheries and coastal infrastructure. Smith offered an overarching contrast: accountability and a change in direction that he supported by describing several of the policy priorities on his candidacy website.

Stutes: Stutes identified an explicit commitment to increasing education funding as her first distinction. She said she believes she is the only candidate who has firmly committed to supporting an increase during the coming year. Her second distinction was an emphasis on the practical mechanics of passing legislation: working across party lines, building a minimum majority of 21 votes in the House and 11 in the Senate, and using those coalitions to adopt a long-term fiscal plan.

8. The effect of ranked-choice voting

None of the candidates are concerned about ranked-choice voting. Their assessments of its likely electoral importance nevertheless differed. Smith described the system’s practical importance, saying the primary results indicate that ranked-choice tabulation will likely determine the race. He urged voters to rank candidates in their genuine order of preference regardless of whether they support the system.

To learn more about the candidates’ individual platforms:

Carrie Harris: https://carrieharrisforalaska.carrd.co/ 

Heath Smith: https://smithaksenate.com/priorities/ 

Louise Stutes: https://louisestutes.com/priorities/ 

John Fraser is a retired social scientist, psychologist, and educator currently serving as a contract writer for the Seward Folly. Fraser can be reached at jfrasernyc@gmail.com.

The Seward Folly co-publisher Robert Barnwell is a current member of the Seward City Council. Barnwell did not participate in the editing of this story.