Article in Independent Political Report on Arizona Independent Party Gubernatorial Primary Mentions Richard Grayson

Today, Friday, February 6, 2026, an article by Jordan Willow Evans, "Arizona Independent Party Chair Endorses Candidate in Contested Gubernatorial Primary," mentions Richard Grayson:

The decision to back Lytle has also drawn criticism from Richard Grayson, a longtime independent candidate who was involved with the organization when it operated as the state’s No Labels affiliate and who appeared on the 2025 special election ballot for Arizona’s 7th Congressional District under its then-No Labels line. Grayson has argued that the party should provide equal access and coverage to all candidates, regardless of their qualifications.

In a January 26 opinion for Independent Newsmedia, Grayson, who has since been identified by local media as running for Arizona’s 5th Congressional District this year as a member of the Green Party, argued that the Arizona Independent Party was originally formed to offer voters an alternative to the Democratic and Republican parties, referencing Johnson’s own remarks that equal ballot access is a core part of the party’s mission. He defended Hourihan, writing that she has actively campaigned across Arizona for months and has received notable grassroots support and community media coverage prior to Lytle’s entrance.

“The issue here is not the merits of either candidate,” Grayson wrote. “It is about process and fairness. Independent voters are drawn to the AIP because they expect a bottom-up party, not one shaped by insider preferences or uneven visibility.”

Grayson contended that Lytle’s entrance into the race and subsequent media coverage has steered public opinion and led readers to have an incomplete understanding of the primary. He noted that other political parties in Arizona are holding competitive primaries and said the AIP should meet that same democratic standard, cautioning that “voters, not party leaders or headlines, should decide.”

A Writer’s Diary From Late October, 2001 | Richard Grayson

A Writer’s Diary From Late October, 2001 | Richard Grayson

Anchorage Daily News publishes Richard Grayson's opinion column, "Alaska Would Thrive Under Communism"

Today, Saturday, January 31, 2026, the Anchorage Daily News published an opinion column by Green Party candidate for U.S. Senator, Richard Grayson, "Alaska Would Thrive Under Communism."

As a Green Party candidate who has qualified to run for U.S. Senator in Alaska's August 2026 primary, I am not reluctant to say that I am a communist.

I say this not out of nostalgia or ideological purity, and certainly not to excuse the failures or crimes committed in communism’s name, but because I believe that – given Alaska’s specific conditions – collective ownership and democratic control of resources offer a more workable future than the one we currently have.

Alaska is a paradox. It is vast, resource-rich, and sparsely populated, yet it struggles with inequality, housing shortages, food insecurity, and some of the highest rates of suicide, addiction, and domestic violence in the country.

The state generates enormous wealth – from oil, gas, fisheries, timber, and military investment – yet many Alaskans find it difficult to meet basic needs while much of that wealth flows out of state to distant shareholders.

This is not primarily a failure of geography or culture. It is largely a question of ownership and control.

Under the current economic system, Alaska often functions like an internal resource colony. Natural wealth is extracted for private gain, communities are subjected to boom-and-bust cycles driven by global markets, and long-term social costs are borne locally. Profits leave; consequences remain.

Communism, at its core, begins with a modest proposition: that the people who live on the land should have a collective stake in, and democratic control over, the wealth produced from it.

Alaska already practices a limited version of this idea. The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend is one of the most unusual policies in the United States. Oil revenues are pooled and distributed equally to residents as recognition of shared ownership.

The PFD has reduced poverty, particularly in rural and Indigenous communities, and has produced measurable benefits in health and education. When it is reduced, those effects are felt quickly.

A more expansive version of this approach would move beyond an annual check. Revenue from Alaska’s natural wealth could be used to guarantee access to housing, healthcare, education, transportation, and energy infrastructure – treating these not primarily as commodities, but as basic social goods.

Housing illustrates the challenge. In much of Alaska, the private market struggles to deliver affordable, durable homes. Construction costs are high, speculation distorts prices, and overcrowding is common. A publicly planned approach could prioritize long-term need and climate-appropriate design over short-term return.

Food security presents a similar problem. Alaska imports most of what it eats, leaving residents vulnerable to high prices and supply disruptions. Collective investment in regional agriculture, fisheries processing, and local distribution would reduce dependence on fragile supply chains.

Critics argue that collective systems suppress initiative. Yet insecurity suppresses initiative as well. When people are not consumed by the cost of housing, health care, or education, they are better positioned to work, innovate, and contribute.

Finally, environmental stewardship matters. Alaska is warming faster than almost anywhere else on Earth. A system driven by short-term profit struggles to plan on generational timescales. Democratic control allows communities to weigh ecological costs against social needs more deliberately.

At bottom, this is about dignity and self-determination. Alaska does not lack wealth. The question is whether that wealth is organized primarily for private accumulation or for broad public benefit.

Scottsdale Independent publishes column by Richard Grayson, "Arizona Independent Party candidates deserve equal access, coverage"

Today, Friday, December 12, 2025, the Scottsdale Independent published a column by Richard Grayson, "Arizona Independent Party candidates deserve equal access, coverage":

A Writer’s Diary From Mid-October, 2001 | Richard Grayson

A Writer’s Diary From Mid-October, 2001 | Richard Grayson

A Writer’s Diary From Early October, 2001 | Richard Grayson

A Writer’s Diary Entries From Late September, 2001 | Richard Grayson

A Writer’s Diary Entries From Late September, 2001 | Richard Grayson

A Writer’s Diary Entries From Mid-September, 2001 | Richard Grayson

A Writer’s Diary Entries From Mid-September, 2001 | Richard Grayson

A Writer’s Diary Entries From Early September, 2001 | Richard Grayson

A Writer’s Diary Entries From Early September, 2001 | Richard Grayson

A Writer’s Diary Entries From Late August, 2001 | Richard Grayson

A Writer’s Diary Entries From Late August, 2001 | Richard Grayson

Richard Grayson's Short Story "June Gloom" Published in Blood+Honey

Today, December 23, 2025, Richard Grayson's short story "June Gloom" was published by the online literary magazine Blood+Honey.

A Writer’s Diary Entries From Mid-August, 2001 | Richard Grayson

A Writer’s Diary Entries From Mid-August, 2001 | Richard Grayson

Apache Junction/Gold Canyon Independent publishes column by Richard Grayson, "No Labels Party candidate says no to name change"

Today, Friday, December 12, 2025, the Apache Junction/Gold Canyon Independent published a column by Richard Grayson, "No Labels Party candidate says no to name change":

OPINION — As the No Labels Party candidate in the September special election in the 7th Congressional District, I object to the party’s name change, which was rammed through without procedural due process for the associational rights of the party’s over 40,000 members without any notice or public hearing.

As its website makes clear, Paul Johnson’s Arizona Independent Party has different views and is a different party from the No Labels Party that existed before he allegedly took control in some deal between himself and the national No Labels organization.

My objections are different from those who decry the confusion the Arizona Independent Party causes with true independent voters, but the prospects for confusion are rife.

Richard Winger’s letter is correct insofar as there was once an American Independent Party, but the situation in 1968 was very different.

The AIP was a creature of George Wallace’s pro-segregation, far-right candidacy for president. The only Arizona AIP candidates who ever got on the ballot were a 1970 congressional candidate, the party’s Wallaceite leader Clifford Thomallo, who accused every U.S. president since 1933 of being under the influence of Communists, and 1972 candidate for state representative, Lawrence Oliver, another far-right party member. So the AIP was clearly an ideological party.

Another difference between now and then: In 1976, only 7% of voters in Arizona were true independents, a far cry from today's 34%, so the possibility of confusion is now much greater — especially when the Arizona Independent Party says it is specifically targeting voters not registered with any party (true independents) and planning to be a home for “independent” candidates.

The state must keep the No Labels Party as the No Labels Party. Paul Johnson can get signatures to make his party a new party in the 2026 elections.

 

A Writer’s Diary Entries From Early August, 2001 | Richard Grayson

A Writer’s Diary Entries From Early August, 2001 | Richard Grayson

Arizona Daily Star/Tucson.com publishes letter by Richard Grayson, "When the state chooses your party"

Today, Tuesday, December 9, 2025, the Arizona Daily Star/Tucson.com published a letter, "When the state chooses your party," by Richard Grayson:

In Communist East Germany, the government simply assigned people to political parties. It was a quiet but powerful way to control political life: the state decided who you were.

Arizona shouldn’t be doing anything that even faintly resembles that history. Yet Secretary of State Adrian Fontes has said he will automatically reassign nearly 47,000 No Labels voters to the Arizona Independent Party becauses of the wishes of a new party chairman, without any formal input from those who chose to register with the No Labels Party. Fontes's office says people who don't like it can “just change it back.” But political identity is a fundamental right, not a clerical detail. Forcing voters into a party whose beliefs they may not share undermines voluntary political association.

No democracy should ever let the government choose a citizen’s party for them.

Richard Grayson