Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions


Touch N' Go
®, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother.

 

You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices. Kohlhaas, The Alaskan Independence Party, Bird, and Jacobus v. State of Alaska, Division of Elections; Lieutenant Governor Meyer; and Director Gail Fenumiai; and Alaskans for Better Elections, Inc. (10/21/2022) sp-7629

Kohlhaas, The Alaskan Independence Party, Bird, and Jacobus v. State of Alaska, Division of Elections; Lieutenant Governor Meyer; and Director Gail Fenumiai; and Alaskans for Better Elections, Inc. (10/21/2022) sp-7629

         Notice:  This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC  REPORTER.  

         Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,  

         303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email  

         corrections@akcourts.gov.  



                   THE  SUPREME  COURT  OF  THE  STATE  OF  ALASKA  



SCOTT  A.  KOHLHAAS,  THE                                  )  

ALASKAN  INDEPENDENCE  PARTY,                              )   Supreme  Court  No.  S-18210  

ROBERT  M.  BIRD,  and  KENNETH  P.                        )  

JACOBUS,                                                   )   S                                                

                                                                uperior Court No. 3AN-20-09532 CI  

                                                           )  

                                                                                

                           Appellants,                     )   O       

                                                                 P I N I O N  

                                                           )  

                                                                                                

         v.                                                )   N     

                                                                 o. 7629 - October 21, 2022  

                                                           )  

STATE  OF  ALASKA,  OFFICE  OF                             )  

LIEUTENANT  GOVERNOR,  DIVISION )  

OF  ELECTIONS,  and  LIEUTENANT                            )  

GOVERNOR  KEVIN  MEYER  and                                )  

DIRECTOR  GAIL  FENUMIAI,  in  their                       )  

official  capacities,                                      )  

                                                           )  

                           Appellees,                      )  

                                                           )  

         and                                               )  

                                                           )  

ALASKANS FOR BETTER  

                                                           )  

ELECTIONS, INC.,  

                                                           )  

                                                           )  

                           Intervenor-                     )  

                           Appellee.                       )  

                                                           )  



                                                                                             

                  Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third  

                                                                                 

                  Judicial District, Anchorage, Gregory Miller, Judge.  



                                                                                              

                  Appearances: Kenneth P. Jacobus, Kenneth P. Jacobus, P.C.,  

                                                                                       

                  Anchorage,  for  Appellants.             Laura  Fox,  Senior  Assistant  

                                                                                        

                  Attorney General, Anchorage, and Treg R. Taylor, Attorney  


----------------------- Page 2-----------------------

                                                                                                         

                    General, Juneau, for Appellees.  Scott M. Kendall, Jahna M.  

                                                                                                          

                    Lindemuth, and Samuel G. Gottstein, Cashion Gilmore &  

                                                                                                         

                    Lindemuth, Anchorage, for Intervenor-Appellee.  Craig W.  

                                                                                                       

                    Richards, Law Offices of Craig Richards, Anchorage, and  

                                                                                                         

                    Daniel R. Suhr, Liberty Justice Center, Chicago, Illinois, for  

                                                                                                         

                    Amici  Mead  Treadwell  and  Dick  Randolph.                              James  E.  

                                                                                                   

                    Torgerson,         Stoel      Rives       LLP,       Anchorage,          T.     Clark  

                                                                                                        

                    Weymouth, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, D.C., and  

                                                                                                     

                    Peter Bautz and Elizabeth Femia, Hogan Lovells US LLP,  

                                                                                                          

                    New York, New York, for Amici Victor Fischer, Richard H.  

                                                                                                        

                    Pildes, and Gary Michael Parsons, Jr.  Susan Orlansky and  

                                                                                                        

                    Thomas P. Amodio, Reeves Amodio LLC, Anchorage, and  

                                                                                                        

                    Paul Haughey, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLC, San  

                                                                                               

                    Francisco, California, for Amici RepresentUs and FairVote.  



                                                                                               

                    Before:          Winfree,         Chief      Justice,      Maassen,          Carney,  

                                                               

                    Borghesan, and Henderson, Justices.  



                                             

                    BORGHESAN, Justice.  



I.        INTRODUCTION  



                                 

                    In 2020 Alaska voters approved, by a slim margin, a ballot initiative that  



                                                                                                                   

madesweeping changes to Alaska's systemofelections. Thechanges included replacing  



                                                                                                                           

the system of political party primary elections with a nonpartisan primary election and  



                                                                                                                        

adopting ranked-choice voting for the general election.  A coalition of politically active  



                                                                                                                      

voters and a political party filed suit, arguing that these changes violate the Alaska  



                                                                                                                        

Constitution.   The superior court ruled otherwise.   We considered the appeal on an  



                                                                                                                      

expedited basis and affirmed the superior court's judgment in a brief order. This opinion  



                    

explains our reasoning.  



                                                                                                                             

                    Changes to the way elections are run are understandably controversial. No  



                                                                                                                           

system of elections is perfect, and there are thoughtful policy arguments both for and  



                                                                                                                              

against the elections system the voters enacted in 2020.  It is not our role as a court to  



                                                              -2-                                                        7629
  


----------------------- Page 3-----------------------

weigh these policy arguments or to consider whether changing the elections system was                                                                                                                                                  



a good idea. Instead we consider whether the voter-enacted changes are permitted by the                                                                                                                                                   



Alaska Constitution. As the New York Court of Appeals observed over eighty years ago                                                                                                                                                    



in upholding changes made to New York City's system of elections:                                                                                                                               "If the people . . .                         



want to try the system, make the experiment, and have voted to do so, we as a court                                                                                                                                              



should be very slow in determining that the act is unconstitutional, until we can put our                                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                                                                                           1     We conclude that  

finger on the very provisions of the Constitution which prohibit it."                                                                                                                                                                  



the challengers have not carried  their  burden to  show that the Alaska Constitution  

                                                                                                                                                                                                              



prohibits the election system Alaska voters have chosen.  

                                                                                                                                                                 



II.                FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS  

                                                             



                   A.                Facts  

                           



                                     On November 3, 2020 Alaska voters approved a ballot initiative entitled  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



"Alaska's Better Elections Initiative" (referred to here as "Initiative 2").  Initiative 2  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



made three main changes to Alaska's election laws.  It repealed  the existing system of  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



party primaries in favor of an open primary for state legislative, state executive, and  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



federal congressional offices, with the top four candidates advancing to the general  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



election.  It adopted ranked-choice voting for the general election.  And it addressed the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



use of "dark money" in elections by requiring greater disclosures of political fundraising  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



sources.  This case concerns only the open primary and ranked-choice voting, not the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



campaign finance reforms.  

                                                    



                   1                 Johnson  v.  City  of  New  York,  9  N.E.2d  30,  38  (N.Y.   1937).  



                                                                                                                     -3-                                                                                                                       7629  


----------------------- Page 4-----------------------

                             1.            Changes to the primary election                                           



                            BeforeInitiative2, Alaskausedasystemofpolitical party primary elections                                                                   



                                                                                                                                                                           2  

to determine which candidates for office would advance to the general election.                                                                                                The  



                                                                                                                                                                                      3  

                                                                                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                                                                   

AlaskaDivision ofElections oversawand administeredthesepartisanprimary elections. 



                                                                                                                                                                          

Each political party determined through its bylaws who was eligible to vote in the party's  



                                   4                                                                                            5  

                                                                                                                                                                 

primary election                      and who was eligible to run as a candidate.                                                  The Division established  



                                                                                                     6  

                                                                                                                                                                       

polling places and furnished election supplies.                                                           The winner of each party's primary  



                                                                                                                                                                     

election for a particular elective office -that party's nominee for the office -advanced  



                                                7  

                                                    

to the general election. 



                            Aspiring  candidates  had  another  path  to  the  general  election  ballot:  

                                                                                                                                                                                          



submitting a nominating petition with the requisite number of signatures fromregistered  

                                                                                                                                                                    



              8  

                                                                                                                                                                  

voters.              The  nominating  petition  had  to  include  information  about  the  candidate,  



                                                                                                                                                                                

including the candidate's name and address and the office for which the candidate was  



              2             Former AS 15.25.010 (2020) (amended Feb. 28, 2021);                                                                       see also           former  



AS 15.25.030 (2020) (amended Feb. 28, 2021) (listing requirements for political party                                                                                         

members declaring candidacy in primary election).                                        



              3             See AS 15.10.105(a).  

                                              



              4             See former AS 15.25.014 (2020) (repealed Feb. 28, 2021).  

                                                                                                                                            



              5             State v. Alaska Democratic Party, 426 P.3d 901 (Alaska 2018) (upholding  

                                                                                                                                                                 

superior court overturning "party affiliation rule," effectively permitting political parties  

                                                                                                                                                                           

to determine who may participate as candidates in primary elections).  

                                                                                                                               



              6             Former AS 15.25.060 (2020) (repealed and reenacted Feb. 28, 2021); see  

                                                                                                                                                                                  

also former AS 15.15.060 (2020) (amended Feb. 28, 2021).  

                                                                                                                  



              7             Former AS 15.25.100 (2020) (repealed and reenacted Feb. 28, 2021).  

                                                                                                                                                                   



              8             Former   AS   15.25.140   et   seq.   (2020)   (repealed   Feb.   28,   2021);  

                                                                                                                                                                        

AS 15.05.010.  

         



                                                                                         -4-                                                                                 7629
  


----------------------- Page 5-----------------------

                9 

running.   If the candidate was running for governor, the petition was required to state  



the name of the lieutenant governor candidate with whom the gubernatorial candidate  

                                                                                                                                                    



                         10  

was running.                  

         



                          Initiative  2  did  away  with  much  of  this,  abolishing  state-run  partisan  

                                                                                                                                                      



primaries and the nominating petition system. Under the new system - called a "jungle  

                                                                                                                                                       

primary" by its opponents11 - the primary election is open to candidates of all parties  

                                                                                                                                              

and those of no party at all.12                             "The primary election does not serve to determine the  

                                                                                                                                                                



nominee of a political party or political group but serves only to narrow the number of  

                                                                                                                                                                  

candidates whose names will appear on the ballot at the general election."13  

                                                                                                                                                  



                          To appear on the primary ballot under Initiative 2 a candidate must file a  

                                                                                                                                                            



declaration of candidacy, which must include "the political party or political group with  

                                                                                                                                                              



which the candidate is registered as affiliated, or whether the candidate would prefer a  

                                                                                                                                                                    

nonpartisan or undeclared designation placed after the candidate's name on the ballot."14  

                                                                                                                                                                       



Candidates for governor must list the lieutenant governor candidate with whom they are  

                                                                                                                                                                

running, and vice versa.15  

                                   



             9            Former AS 15.25.180(a) (2020) (repealed Feb. 28, 2021).                                           



             10           Former AS 15.25.180(a)(17) (2020) (repealed Feb. 28, 2021).                                               



             11          E.g.,   STATE   OF   ALASKA,    OFFICIAL   ELECTION   PAMPHLET    106   (2020)  



(statement by former U.S. Senator Mark Begich and former Alaska Governor Sean                                                                               

Parnell in opposition to Initiative 2).                          



             12          See AS 15.25.030(a)(5).  

                                         



             13          AS 15.25.010.  

                                  



             14          AS 15.25.030; AS 15.25.060.  

                                                               



             15          AS 15.25.030(a)(16)-(17).  

                                  



                                                                                -5-                                                                         7629
  


----------------------- Page 6-----------------------

                              Each voter receives a single primary ballot and may vote for "any candidate                                                                   



 . . . without limitations based on the political party or political group affiliation of either                                                                                     

                                                             16    The ballot includes a disclaimer about party affiliation:  

the voter or the candidate."                                                                                                                                           



                              A candidate's designated affiliation does not imply that the  

                                                                                                                                                             

                              candidate is nominated or endorsed by the political party or  

                                                                                   

                              group or that the party or group approves of or associates  

                                                                                                                                      

                              with that candidate, but only that the candidate is registered  

                                                                                                         

                              as affiliated with the political party or political group.[17]  

                                                                                                                                       



The four candidates receiving the greatest number of votes in the primary advance to the  

                                                                                                                                                                                           

general election regardless of party affiliation.18  

                                                                                                            



                              2.             Changes to the general election  

                                                                                                     



                              Under the previous general election regime, each voter cast a vote by  

                                                                                                                                                                                           



choosing a single candidate for each office. The total number of votes for each candidate  

                                                                                                                                                                            

was tallied and the candidate receiving the greatest number of votes was victorious.19  

                                                                                                                                                                                                 



                              Initiative 2 adopts ranked-choice voting - also called "instant-runoff"  

                                                                                                                                                             

voting20 - which permits voters to rank candidates for each office in order of preference  

                                                                                                                                                                          



and  instructs  the  Division  of  Elections  to  tabulate  these  preferences  in  a  series  of  

                                                                                                                                                                                            



               16             AS 15.15.025; AS 15.25.060; AS 15.15.230.                                                             While the general election                  



uses ranked-choice voting under Initiative 2, the primary election still uses single-choice                                                                         

voting.   AS 15.15.350(c); AS 15.15.025.                            



               17             AS 15.15.030(14); AS 15.25.060.  

                                                                                  



               18             AS 15.25.100(a).  

                                       



               19             See former AS 15.25.100 (2020) (repealed and reenacted Feb. 28, 2021);  

                                                                                                                                                                                   

former AS 15.15.350 (2020) (amended Feb. 28, 2021); former AS 15.15.360 (2020)  

                                                                                                                                                         

(amended Feb. 28, 2021).  

                                            



               20             See Angela Sbano, How Should Alaskans Choose?:   The Debate Over  

                                                                                                                                                                                      

Ranked Choice Voting, 37 ALASKA  L. R                                                     EV. 295, 296 n.3 (2020).              

                                                             



                                                                                             -6-                                                                                      7629
  


----------------------- Page 7-----------------------

            21  

rounds.          The Division "shall initially tabulate each validly cast ballot as one vote" for                                         

the highest-ranked candidate on that ballot.22                                                  

                                                                            If after this tabulation one candidate has  



                                                                                                                                         

more  than  half  of  the  votes,  voting  is  complete  and  that  candidate  is  declared  the  



            23  

winner.          If  no  candidate  has  more  than  half  of  the  votes,  the  candidate  with  the  fewest  



                                 24  

votes   is   eliminated.                Each   ballot   initially   counted   for   the   eliminated   candidate   is  



                                                                                                      25  

reassigned  to  that voter's s   econd  choice  marked  on  the  ballot.                                   If  the  ballot  does  not  



rank  a  second-choice  candidate,  it  is  considered  "inactive"  and  is  not  counted  in  further  



                                  26  

rounds  of  tabulation.               The  process  repeats  until  only  two  candidates  remain,  when  the  



"tabulation   is   complete"   and  the   candidate   "with   the   greatest   number   of   votes   is  

elected."27  



                      Like the primary election ballot, the general election ballot displays each  

                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                                   28   The  

candidate's political party affiliation or designation as undeclared or nonpartisan.                                                     

                                                                                                                



general election ballot and each polling place must include the same disclaimer about  

                                                                                                                                     



           21         See  AS   15.15.350(c)-(e);  AS   15.15.360(a)(1).
  



           22         AS   15.15.350(d).
  



           23         Id .
  



           24         Id.
  



           25         AS   15.15.350(d)(2).  



           26         Id. ;  AS   15.15.350(g)(2).  



           27         AS   15.15.350(d).   



           28         AS   15.15.030(5).  



                                                                     -7-                                                              7629
  


----------------------- Page 8-----------------------

                             29  

party affiliation.                The general election ballot must also include a mechanism for voters                                             

to write in a candidate for each office.                             30  



                  

            B.          Proceedings  



                                                                                                                                                        

                        A  coalition  of  plaintiffs  filed  suit  in  December  2020  to  challenge  the  



                                                                                                                                            

constitutionality of Initiative 2.  The plaintiffs are Scott A. Kohlhaas, who is registered  



                                                                                                                                                 

with the Libertarian Party of Alaska and ran as a Libertarian candidate for the Alaska  



                                                                                                                                               

House of Representatives and U.S. Senate; Robert M. Bird, the chair of the Alaskan  



                                                                                                                                                

Independence Party; Kenneth P. Jacobus, a registered Republican voter; and the Alaskan  



                                                                                                                                                

Independence Party, a political party.  They named as defendants the State of Alaska,  



                                                                                                                                                       

Division of Elections; Lieutenant Governor Kevin Meyer, in his official capacity; and  



                                                                                                                                                      

Gail Fenumiai, in her official capacity as Director of the Division of Elections.  The  



                                                                                                                                                                

group Alaskans for Better Elections, Inc., a sponsor of Initiative 2, intervened in defense.  



                                                                                                                                                  

                        Theplaintiffs (referred to collectivelyas"Kohlhaas"in this opinion) argued  



                                                                                                                                      

that Initiative 2 violated speech rights under the United States and Alaska Constitutions  



                                                                                                            

by weakening political parties' ability to select candidates for the general election and  



                                                                                                                                                           

by allowing candidates to identify their party affiliation on the ballot without regard to  

                                                                                           31  Kohlhaas argued that Initiative 2's  

                                                                                                                                                         

whether the party had nominated or endorsed them. 



            29          AS 15.15.030(14); AS 15.15.060(e).         



            30          AS 15.15.030(5).  For a write-in vote to be counted, the named candidate  

                                                                                                                                             

must have filed a letter of intent to run as a write-in candidate with the Division of  

                                                                                                                                                          

Elections.  AS 15.25.105.  

                                                 



            31          U.S.  Const.  amend.  I  ("Congress  shall  make  no  law  respecting  an  

                                                                                                                                                        

establishment of religion,  or  prohibiting  the free exercise thereof; or  abridging  the  

                                                                                                                                                        

freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and  

                                                                                                                                                        

to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."); Alaska Const. art. I, § 5  

                                                                                                                                                           

("Every person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects, being responsible  

                                                                                                                                     (continued...)  



                                                                            -8-                                                                     7629
  


----------------------- Page 9-----------------------

approach to pairing candidates for governor and lieutenant governor in the primary                                                       



election violated the provision of the Alaska Constitution for electing the lieutenant                                                



                 32  

                                                                                                                                                  

governor.             And he argued that Initiative 2's adoption of ranked-choice voting for the  



                                                                                                                                       

general election unconstitutionally burdened the right to vote and violated the provision  



                                                                                                                                                 

of the Alaska Constitution providing that the candidate for governor "receiving the  



                                                                    33  

                                                   

greatest number of votes" is victorious. 



                                                                                                                               

                       Kohlhaas, the State, and Alaskans for Better Elections filed cross-motions  



                                                                                                                                                

for summary judgment in April 2021.  The superior court held oral argument in July  



                                                                                                                                                

2021  and,  shortly  afterward,  granted  summary  judgment  in  favor  of  the  State  and  



                                                                                                                                                

Alaskans for Better Elections.  The court rejected Kohlhaas's argument that the new  



                                                                                                                                                

primary system abridged the political parties' freedom of association.  The court also  



                                                                                                                                      

rejected Kohlhaas's arguments about electing the governor and lieutenant governor,  



                                                                                                                                                 

noting  that  Kohlhaas  failed  to  meaningfully  explain  how  Initiative  2  violated  the  



                                                                                                                                                 

pertinent constitutional provisions.  And the court rejected Kohlhaas's arguments that  



ranked-choice voting was unconstitutional because it was too confusing or gave some  



                                                                  

voters more opportunity to vote than others.  



                                                                                                                                        

                       Kohlhaas appealed. We agreed to hear the appeal on an expedited schedule  



                                                                                                                                              

so that prospective candidates and the Division of Elections would know the rules  



            31         (...continued)  



                                     

for the abuse of that right.").  



            32         Alaska Const. art. III, § 8 ("The lieutenant governor shall be nominated in  

                                                                                                                                                    

the manner provided by law for nominating candidates for other elective offices.  In the  

                                                                                                                                                  

general election the votes cast for a candidate for governor shall be considered as cast  

                                                                                                                                                

also for the candidate for lieutenant governor running jointly with him.  The candidate  

                                                                                                                                       

whose name appears on  the ballot jointly  with that of the successful candidate for  

                                                                                                                                                  

governor shall be elected lieutenant governor.").  

                                                                



            33         Alaska Const. art. III, § 3.  

                                                                  



                                                                         -9-                                                                  7629
  


----------------------- Page 10-----------------------

 governing the upcoming 2022 elections sufficiently far in advance to prepare.                                                                                                        After  



                                                                                          34  

briefing by the parties and amici curiae,                                                                                                                                                   

                                                                                               we heard argument on January 18, 2022 and  



                                                                                                                                                                              

 issued  an order the following day affirming the superior court's grant of summary  



                                                                                                               

judgment to the State and to Alaskans for Better Elections.  



                                                             

 III.           STANDARDS OF REVIEW  



                                                                                                                                                                                            

                               We review summary judgment rulings and questions of constitutional and  



                                                                                                                                                                           35  

                                                                                                                                                                                           

 statutory interpretation, including the constitutionality of a statute, de novo.                                                                                                We give  



                                                                                                                                                                                                

no deference to the superior court's decision and instead "adopt the 'rule of law that is  



                                                                                                                                       36  

                                                                                                                                     

most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy.' " 



                                                                                                                                                                                            

                               Kohlhaas  bears  the  burden  to  establish  a  constitutional  violation:                                                                                    "A  



                                                                                                                                                                                             

presumption  of  constitutionality  applies,   and  doubts  are  resolved   in   favor  of  



                                         37  

                                                                                                                                                                                               

 constitutionality."                            "[W]hen constitutional issues are raised, this court has a duty to  



                                                                                                                                                                                           

 construe a statute,wherereasonable, to avoid dangers ofunconstitutionality. Rather than  



                34             Arguing in favor of Kohlhaas were amici curiae Mead Treadwell and Dick                                                                                     



 Randolph.  Treadwell was Alaska's lieutenant governor from 2011 to 2015 and ran in   

 the   Republican   primary   for   governor   in   2018.     Randolph   was   an   Alaska   state  

representative from 1971-75 and 1979-83 and was the Libertarian Party's gubernatorial                                                                                 

 candidate in 1982.                           Amicus briefs supporting the State and intervenors were filed by                                                                                

nonprofits RepresentUs and FairVote and by Alaska Constitutional Convention delegate                                                                                              

Victor Fischer and legal scholars Richard H. Pildes and G. Michael Parsons.                                                                                                  We thank   

 all amici curiae for their helpful briefing in this case.                                                   



                35             Wielechowski v. State, 403 P.3d 1141, 1146 (Alaska 2017) (quoting State  

                                                                                                                                                                                         

 v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, 366 P.3d 86, 90 (Alaska 2016)).  

                                                                                                                                   



                36            Id. (quoting Ketchikan Gateway Borough, 366 P.3d at 90).  

                                                                                                                                                           



                37             State v. Planned Parenthood of the Great Nw., 436 P.3d 984, 992 (Alaska  

                                                                                                                                                                                   

 2019) (quoting State, Dep't of Revenue v. Andrade, 23 P.3d 58, 71 (Alaska 2001)).  

                                                                                                                                                                            



                                                                                              -10-                                                                                       7629
  


----------------------- Page 11-----------------------

 strike a statute down, we will employ a narrowing construction, if one is reasonably                                                                    



                     38  

 possible."                



                           When this  lawsuit was filed, the new elections procedures enacted by  

                                                                                                                                                                         



 Initiative 2 had not been used in any election.   Kohlhaas's suit is therefore a facial  

                                                                                                                                                                   

 challenge to these procedures.39                                    "We uphold a statute against a facial constitutional  

                                                                                                                                                   



 challenge if despite . . . occasional problems it might create in its application to specific  

                                                                                                                                                               

 cases, [it] has a plainly legitimate sweep."40  

                                                                                          



 IV.          DISCUSSION  



              A.           Initiative 2 Does Not Violate Political Parties' Associational Rights.                                                           



                           The Alaska Constitution "inherently guarantees the rights of people,                                                                       and  

                                                                                                                                                 41    Kohlhaas's  

political parties , to associate together to achieve their political goals."                                                                           



 overlapping arguments about these associational rights can be distilled to two:  (1) by  

                                                                                                                                                                          



 replacing party primary elections with an open nonpartisan primary election, Initiative 2  

                                                                                                                                                                            



 harms parties' abilities to choose their nominees; and (2) by allowing candidates to  

                                                                                                                                                                          



 display  their  party  affiliations  on  the  ballot,  Initiative  2  forces  political  parties  to  

                                                                                                                                                                          



              38           State v. ACLU of Alaska                          , 204 P.3d 364, 373 (Alaska 2009).                        



              39           See Ass'n of Vill. Council Presidents Reg'l Hous. Auth. v. Mael, 507 P.3d  

                                                                                                                                                                      

 963, 982 (Alaska 2022) (" 'An as-applied [constitutional] challenge requires evaluation  

                                                                                                                                                          

 of the facts of the particular case in which the challenge arises,' while a facial challenge  

                                                                                                                                                            

 means 'that there is no set of circumstances under which the statute can be applied  

                                                                                                                                                               

 consistent with the requirements of the constitution.' " (alteration in original) (footnote  

                                                                                                                                                            

 omitted) (first quoting Dapo v. State, Off. of Child.'s Servs., 454 P.3d 171, 180 (Alaska  

                                                                                                                                                               

 2019), then quoting ACLU of Alaska , 204 P.3d at 372)).  

                                                                                                      



              40           Planned Parenthood of the Great Nw., 436 P.3d at 991-92 (alterations in  

                                                                                                                                   

 original) (quoting State v. Planned Parenthood, 171 P.3d 577, 581 (Alaska 2007)).  

                                                                                                                                                          



              41           State  v.  Alaska  Democratic  Party,  426  P.3d  901,  906  (Alaska  2018)  

                                                                                                                                                                  

 (emphasis in original).  

                            



                                                                                   -11-                                                                             7629
  


----------------------- Page 12-----------------------

associate with candidates they may not want to be associated with and permits candidates                                                                                                                                                                   



to lie about their genuine association with the party.                                                                                                  



                                            To determine whether election laws place an unconstitutional burden on                                                                                                                                                                  



associational rights, we apply a four-step test described in                                                                                                                                 State, Division of Elections v.                                                            



 Green Party of Alaska                                                     :  



                                            When   an   election   law   is   challenged   the   court   must  first  

                                            determine   whether  the   claimant   has   in   fact   asserted   a  

                                            constitutionally protected right.                                                                           If so we must then assess                                           

                                            "the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the                                                                                                                                

                                            rights."   Next we weigh "the precise interests put forward by                                                                                                                               

                                            the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule."                                                                                                                                       

                                            Finally, we judge the fit between the challenged legislation                                                                                                       

                                            and the state's interests in order to determine "the extent to                                                                                                                                

                                            which   those   interests   make   it   necessary   to   burden   the  

                                                                                                      [42]  

                                            plaintiff's rights."                                                 



The test is flexible:  "[A]s the burden on constitutionally protected rights becomes more  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



severe,  the  government  interest  must  be  more  compelling  and  the  fit  between  the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

challenged legislation and the state's interest must be closer."43  "[S]ubstantial burdens  

                                                                                                                                                                        



require compelling interests narrowly tailored to minimally infringe on the right; modest  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



or minimal burdens require only that the law is reasonable, non-discriminatory, and  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

advances 'important regulatory interests.' "44                                                                                                         "Alaska's constitution is more protective  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



                      42                     118               P.3d                1054,                   1061                  (Alaska                         2005)                    (footnotes                             omitted)                         (quoting  



O'Callaghan v. State                                                  , 914 P.2d 1250, 1254 (Alaska 1996)).                                                                  



                      43                    Id.  



                      44                   Alaska Democratic Party , 426 P.3d at 909 (quoting O'Callaghan, 914 P.2d  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

at 1254).  

        



                                                                                                                                        -12-                                                                                                                                 7629
  


----------------------- Page 13-----------------------

of rights and liberties than is the United States Constitution," so a law that passes muster                                                                               

under the U.S. Constitution may not pass muster under Alaska's.                                                                            45  



                             Critical to this analysis are three prior elections cases:  our decisions in  

                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                 46   and the U.S. Supreme Court's  

Green Party and State v. Alaska Democratic Party                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                     



                                                                                                                                                                    47  

decision in Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party.  

                                                                                                                                                                         



                             Green Party concerned an Alaska law requiring each political party to have  

                                                                                                                                                                                



a separate primary election ballot on which only that party's candidates could appear;  

                                                                                                                                                                                           

voters were required to choose just one party's ballot.48                                                                This law effectively restricted  

                                                                                                                                                                      

voters to participating in a single party's primary for all elective offices.49                                                                                     When the  

                                                                                                                                                                                  



Green Party and Republican Moderate Party asked to share a ballot listing both parties'  

                                                                                                                                                                         

candidates, the State refused.50  

                                                                   



                             Applying the test described above, we recognized that a party's "right to  

                                                                                                                                          



determine who may participate in selecting its candidates - and, if the political party so  

                                                                                                                                                                                     



desires, to seek the input and participation of a broad spectrum of voters - is of central  

                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                          51     Therefore we held that "political  

importance to the right of political association."                                                                                                                   

                                                                              



              45             Green Party               , 118 P.3d at 1060-61.         



              46             426 P.3d 901.        



              47  

                                                           

                             552 U.S. 442 (2008).  



              48             118 P.3d at 1058.         



              49            Id.  



              50            Id.  



              51  

                                                                                                                                                                  

                            Id.  at 1064; see also id.  at 1061 n.37 (articulating "right of consenting  

political parties to determine who may participate in their primaries").                                                                                



                                                                                        -13-                                                                                  7629
  


----------------------- Page 14-----------------------

parties have a constitutionally protected associational interest in opening their ballots to                                                                      



                                                                                                                                                          52  

voters who would otherwise vote in the primaries of their own political parties."                                                                              



                         Next we concluded that a party's right to determine who may participate  

                                                                                                           



                                                                                                                                                                  53  

in  its  primary  was  substantially  burdened  by  the  rule  against  combined  ballots.                                                                             

                                                                                                                                                    



Because voters were limited to a single primary ballot, political parties were unable to  

                                                        



"appeal to voters who are unwilling to limit their primary choices to the relatively narrow  

                                                                                                                                                         

ideological agenda advanced by any single political party."54                                                         The law "prevent[ed] the  

                                                                                                                                                                



political parties themselves from determining who will be allowed to participate" in  

                                                                                                                                                                  

choosing a nominee, a substantial burden on the parties' associational rights.55   Finally,  

                                                                                                                                                       



combining the last two steps of the test, we found that most of the State's "generalized  

                                                                                                                                              



interests"  were  too  abstract  when  weighed  against  the  substantial  abridgment  of  

                                                                                                                                                                 



associational rights, and that the remaining interests were not closely related to the rule  

                                                                                                                                                              

against  combined  ballots.56  We held that the law's burden on parties' associational rights  

                                                                                                                                                           

was unconstitutional.57  

         



             52          Id.  at   1061.  



             53          Id.  at   1065.  



             54          Id.  



             55          Id.  



             56          Id.  at  1066-69.   The  interests  put  forward  to  justify  the  rule  were:   holding  



primary   elections,   complying   with   U.S.   Supreme   Court   precedent,   avoiding   ballot  

overcrowding,   requiring   a   showing   of   community   support   from   political  parties,  

strengthening parties, preserving political stability, encouraging the two-party system,  

                                                                                  

avoiding voter confusion, and holding orderly and efficient elections.                                                                 Id . at 1066.     

                                                   



             57          Id . at 1070.  

                                     



                                                                               -14-                                                                         7629
  


----------------------- Page 15-----------------------

                    Alaska   Democratic   Party ,   decided   thirteen   years   after  Green   Party,  



                                                                                    58  

involved asimilar restrictionon                 political party      primaries.                                              

                                                                                        TheAlaskaDemocraticParty  



                                                                                                       

amended its bylaws to permit registered independent voters to run as candidates in its  



                                                                                                                               

primary,  but  state  law  allowed  a  candidate  to  run  in  a  party's  primary  only  if  the  

                                                                           59  The party challenged this law as a  

                                                                                                                                   

candidate was registered to vote with that party. 

violation of its associational rights.60  

                                                           

                    Applying the Green Party test, we struck down this party-affiliation rule.61  

                                                                                                                                      



First, we concluded that the Democratic Party had asserted a constitutional right "to  

                                                                                                                                

choose its general election nominees" regardless of party registration.62                                      At the second  

                                                                                                                



step, we held  that the party  affiliation  rule substantially  burdened  political parties'  

                                                                                                                         



associational rights because, like the combined-ballot ban in Green Party, it precluded  

                                                                                                                      



the parties from "appeal[ing] to voters who are unwilling to limit their primary choices  

                                                                                                                         

to the relatively narrow ideological agenda advanced by any single political party."63  

                                                                                                                                      



And again combining the third and fourth steps, we concluded that the State's asserted  

                                                                                                                        



interests were either not advanced by the law or that the law was not narrowly tailored  

                                                                                                                         

to achieve those interests.64  

                                           



          58        426  P.3d  901  (Alaska  2018).  



          59        Id.  at  905-06.   



          60        Id.  at  906.  



          61        Id.  at  907.  



          62        Id.  at  908-09.  



          63        Id .  at  909-10  (quoting  State,  Div.  of  Elections  v.  Green  Party  of  Alaska ,  118  



P.3d   1054,   1061  (Alaska  2005)).  



          64        Id.  at  911-15.   The  State's  asserted  interests  were:   (1)  ensuring  sufficient  



                                                                                                               (continued...)  



                                                               -15-                                                         7629
  


----------------------- Page 16-----------------------

                          TheU.S.           SupremeCourt's                    decisionin           WashingtonStateGrange                              concerned  



a facial challenge to a Washington voter initiative enacting a primary election process                                                                    



similar to Initiative 2:                    an open primary in which the top two candidates advanced to the                                                         

                                                                                             65    The election regulations there, like  

general election regardless of party affiliation.                                                                                                                 



Initiative 2, provided that the primary did not select political parties' nominees but  

                                                                                                                                                                   

instead narrowed the number of candidates who would proceed to the general election.66  

                                                                                                                                                                           



The political parties challenging the law argued that the initiative "allow[ed] primary  

                                                                                                                                                          



voters  who  are  unaffiliated  with  a  party  to  choose  the  party's  nominee"  because  

                                                                                                                                                         



candidates progressing to the general election "[would] become the de facto nominees  

                                                                                                                                                       



of the parties they prefer, thereby violating the parties' right to choose their own standard  

                                                                                                                                                          

bearers."67              The  Court  rejected  this  argument  because  the  primary  established  by  

                                                                                                                                                                    

                                                                                                                                               68  Noting that  

Washington's initiative "[did] not, by its terms, choose parties' nominees."                                                                                       

                                                                                                                          



"[t]he law never refer[red] to the candidates as nominees of any party, nor . . .treat[ed]  

                                                                                                                                                      



             64           (...continued)  



                                                                                                                                                          

public support for political parties; (2) ensuring sufficient public support for political  

                                                                                                                                                                      

candidates; (3) preventing voter confusion; and (4) promoting political stability.  Id. at  

911.  



             65           552 U.S. 442, 447-48 (2008).  

                                                                      



             66           Compare  id.  at  453  ("[T]he  primary  'does  not  serve  to  determine  the  

                                                                                                                                                                   

nominees of a political party but serves to winnow the number of candidates to a final  

                                                                                                     

list of two for the general election.' " (quoting WASH. A                                                         DMIN. C         ODE   § 434-262-012   

                                                                                                

(emergency regulation )),  with  AS 15.25.010 ("The primary election does not serve to                                                  

determine the nominee of a political party or political group but serves only to narrow   

the   number   of   candidates   whose   names   will   appear   on   the   ballot   at   the   general  

election.").  



             67            Wash. State Grange, 552 U.S. at 452-53.  

                                                                                            



             68           Id . at 453.  

                                      



                                                                                 -16-                                                                           7629
  


----------------------- Page 17-----------------------

them as such," the Court determined that "[t]he essence of nomination - the choice of                                                                                



                                                                                                                69  

a party representative - d[id] not occur under" the law.                                                                                                         

                                                                                                                       The Court explained that  



                                                                                                                                                            

"[w]hether parties nominate their own candidates outside the state-run primary is simply  



                                                                                                                                                              

irrelevant"  and  that,  with  the  repeal  of  Washington's  prior  laws  governing  party  



                                                                                                                                                                     70  

                                                                                                                                                      

nominations, parties could nominatecandidates "by whatever mechanismtheychoose." 



                          Similar  to  Alaska's  Initiative  2,  the  Washington  initiative  required  

                                                                                                                                                       

candidates to designate on the ballot a "party preference."71                                                             The parties argued that  

                                                                                                                                                                 



allowing  candidates  to  state  a  party  preference  on  the  ballot  amounted  to  an  

                                                                                                                                                                  



unconstitutional forced association because voters would assume these candidates were  

                                                                                                                                                                

the  designated  parties'  nominees.72                                     The  Court  dismissed  this  argument  as  "sheer  

                                                                                                                                                           



speculation" that "depend[s] . . . on the possibility that voters will be confused as to the  

                                                                                                                                                                   

                                                                                            73    Describing ways in which election  

meaning of the party-preference designation."                                                                                                            

                                                                  



administrators and political parties could reduce the risk of voter confusion - such as  

                                                                                                               



placing  a  disclaimer  on  the  ballot  or  educating  the  public  about  the  meaning  of  a  

                                                                                                                                                                      



candidate's stated party preference - the Court concluded that mere speculation about  

                                                                                                                                                              

voter confusion was not enough to sustain a facial challenge to the law.74  

                                                                                                                                   



             69           Id .  



             70           Id .  



             71           Id . at 444, 453 n.7.         



             72           Id . at 454.     



             73           Id.  



             74           Id . at 456-57 ("Each of their arguments rests on factual assumptions about  

                                                                                                                                                              

voter confusion, and each fails for the same reason:  In the absence of evidence, we  

                                                                                                                                              

cannot assume that Washington's voters will be misled.").  

                                                                                                                   



                                                                                -17-                                                                           7629
  


----------------------- Page 18-----------------------

                                                            We consider the arguments made by Kohlhaas and the Treadwell and                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



Randolph amici ("Treadwell amici") in light of these precedents.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



                                                            1.                           Kohlhaas has asserted a constitutionally protected right                                                                                                                                                                                                                  .  



                                                            The first step of the test is to determine whether Kohlhaas has asserted a                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



constitutionally protected right. Kohlhaas argues that Initiative 2's nonpartisan primary                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



affects parties' rights "to determine who may participate in choosing their candidates"                                                                                                                                                                       



and to actually choose the party's nominees.                                                                                                                                                                 The Treadwell amici focus on the latter                                                                                                                     



right but frame it differently, arguing that by allowing candidates to list their party                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



registration on the ballot, Initiative 2 forces parties "to accept non-members as their                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



representatives running under their banners." In other words, the Treadwell amici argue,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



political parties have a right against forced association that Initiative 2 burdens.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       The  



 State concedes that Kohlhaas's claim "arguably" meets the first step of this Court's                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



balancing test.  Alaskans for Better Elections does not concede this point, arguing that                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



Kohlhaas seeks to "invent a new state constitutional right allowing parties to designate                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



their preferred candidates on the ballot."                                                                                                         



                                                            Kohlhaas and the Treadwell amici have asserted constitutionally protected                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



rights.    A political party's "right to determine who may participate in selecting                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 its  



candidates - and, if the political party so desires, to seek the input and participation of                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



a   broad  spectrum   of   voters   -   is   of   central   importance   to   the   right   of   political  

                                                         75   So too is a political party's right to choose its standard bearer.76   The flip  

association."                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                              75                           State, Div. of Elections v. Green Party of Alaska                                                                                                                                                                               , 118 P.3d 1054, 1064                                                         



 (Alaska 2005).   



                              76                           See Wash. State Grange, 552 U.S. at 453 (describing "the special place the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

First Amendment reserves for, and the special protection it accords, the process by which  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

a political party 'select[s] a standard bearer who best represents the party's ideologies  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

and preferences' " (quoting Cal. Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 575 (2000)));  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      (continued...)  



                                                                                                                                                                                        -18-                                                                                                                                                                                7629
  


----------------------- Page 19-----------------------

side of a party's right to choose a standard bearer is the right                                  not  to be forced to accept         

a candidate the party does not want.                      77  Kohlhaas and the Treadwell amici invoke these  



                                                                                                                                       

rights.  Whether Initiative 2 actually burdens those rights, and if so to what degree, are  



                                                                                                                        

different questions addressed at the second stage of the Green Party test.  



                                                                                                                             

                     2.	        Initiative  2  places  a  minimal  burden  on  political  parties'  

                                                        

                                associational rights.  



                                                                                                                                

                                i.	        The nonpartisan open primary does not burden a party's  

                                                                                              

                                           ability to choose its standard bearer.  



                                                                                                                                

                     Kohlhaas contends that Initiative 2's nonpartisan primary burdens parties'  



                                                                                                                                 78  

                                                                                                                                      

associational rights because it diminishes their control over the primary election.                                                  But  



           76         (...continued)  



                                                                                                                               

State v. Alaska Democratic Party, 426 P.3d 901, 909 (Alaska 2018) (describing political  

                                                                                                                          

party's "associational right to choose its general election nominees").  Our description  

                                                                                                                          

of the constitutional right implicated in Alaska Democratic Party should be understood  

                                                                                                                                 

within the context of the electoral system in which the case was decided.  See former  

                                                                                                                                  

AS 15.25.100 (2020) (repealed and reenacted Feb. 28, 2021). Within that system, which  

                                                                                                                               

advanced the winner of each political party's primary to the general election, we decided  

                                                                                                                               

that theAlaskaConstitution protects a political party's right to choose its general election  

                                                                                                                               

nominee, Alaska Democratic Party, 426 P.3d at 909, akin to the U.S. Supreme Court's  

                                                                                                                                             

ruling that the First Amendment protects a party's right to choose its "standard bearer."  

                                                                                                                                  

Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, 359 (1997) ("[T]he New Party,  

                                                                                                                                      

and not someone else, has the right to select the New Party's 'standard bearer.' "). We  

                                                                                                                                    

did not hold, as the question was not presented, that a political party has a right to have  

                                                                                                                                       

the nominee of its choice actually advance to the general election regardless of how the  

                                                                                                                                          

primary election is structured.  Kohlhaas and the Treadwell amici do not assert that a  

                                                   

political party has such a right.  



           77        See Wash. State Grange, 552 U.S. at 452-55 (recognizing parties' right  

                                                                                                                                    

against being compelled to associate with candidates they do not endorse but concluding  

                                                                                                                          

that Washington election regulations did not compel association).  

                                                                                                           



           78        Kohlhaas also argues that Initiative 2 "harms the right of a minor political  

                                                                                                                               

party to exist at all." To be designated as a political party under Alaska law, a party must  

                                                                                                                                    

                                                                                                                     (continued...)  



                                                                  -19-	                                                            7629
  


----------------------- Page 20-----------------------

political parties do not have a right to control the State's primary elections.                                                        They have   



a right to associate in order to nominate preferred candidates, but as Washington State  



Grange  makes clear and even Kohlhaas concedes, political parties do not have a right                                                             



                                                             79  

to a State-run nominating process.                                



                        Initiative  2's  nonpartisan  open  primary  places  no  burden  on  political  

                                                                                                                                           



parties' associational rights precisely because it decouples the State's election system  

                                                                                                                                              



from political parties' process of selecting their standard bearers. In Alaska Democratic  

                                                                                                                                     



Party and Green Party we struck down laws that restricted a political party's right to  

                                                                                                                                                       



choose  its  standard  bearer  and  to  determine  who  could  participate  in  making  that  

                                                                                                                                                   

choice.80   Initiative 2 is the polar opposite of these laws: it places no restrictions on how  

                                                                                                                                                   



political parties go about choosing their standard bearers.  Previously, political parties  



were  forced  to  hold  a  primary  election  under  rules  passed  by  the  legislature  and  

                                                                                                                                                   



            78          (...continued)  



                                                                                                                                    

have a number of registered voters equal to at least 3% of total votes cast for governor  

                                                                                                                                                 

in the previous general election (or U.S. senator if no gubernatorial race was held,  

                                                                                                                                                            

followed by U.S. representative if no senatorial race was held).   AS 15.80.010(27).  

                                                                                                                                         

Before Initiative 2, groups could also achieve party status if their nominated candidate  

                                                                                                                                 

received at least 3% of the total votes cast in the election.  Former AS 15.80.010(27)  

                                                                                                                                            

(2020)  (amended  Feb.  28,  2021).                                 Removing  the  latter  option,  Kohlhaas  argues,  

                                                                                                                                                     

"eliminated the only reasonable method of qualifying a party in Alaska" because the  

                                                                                                                                         

registered-voters threshold is too high for a minor party to meet.  Because Kohlhaas  

                                                                                                                                                      

raises this argument - which would seem to require significant factual development -  

                                                                                                                                                      

for the first time on appeal,  it  is  waived and we do not consider it.   See Beach v.  

                                                                                       

Handforth-Kome, 314 P.3d 53, 57 n.10 (Alaska 2013).  



            79          552 U.S. at 453.  Kohlhaas conceded this point before the superior court,  

                                                                                                                                                

too, agreeing that "there is no legal requirement that the State pay for primary elections  

                                                                                                                                          

to select party candidates."  

                           



            80         Alaska Democratic Party, 426 P.3d at 907; Green Party, 118 P.3d at 1064- 

                                                                                                                                                

65.  



                                                                         -20-                                                                    7629
  


----------------------- Page 21-----------------------

                                                                                                                81  

administered  by   the   Division   of   Elections.                                                                     Now   they   can   select   their   preferred  



candidate through whatever mechanism they desire and are under no obligation to allow                                                                                                                      



participation by voters they do not want.                                                                If a political party would like to choose the                                                           



candidate that best represents its platform by primary election, caucus, or straw poll, it                                                                                                                           

                                                              82      The party can then throw whatever support it can muster  

is entirely free to do so.                                                                                                                                                                             



behind that candidate's election bid.  The parties' nomination process stands apart from  

                                                                                                                                                                                                             



the  primary  election,  which  serves  merely  to  winnow  the  field  of  candidates  to  a  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



manageable number for the general election.  

                                                                                                                  



                                 In this way Initiative 2 is much like the law at issue in  Washington State  

                                                                                                                                                                                                            

                     83      The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the argument that this kind of primary  

Grange.                                                                                                                                                                                             



system violated political parties' associational rights by making the victorious primary  

                                                                                                                                                                                                     



                 81              Former AS 15.25.010 (2020) (amended Feb. 28, 2021).                                                                         



                 82              Kohlhaas   argues   that   parties  cannot   afford   to   run   their   own   primary  



elections  and  will  be  forced  to  resort  to  nominating  candidates  in  "  'smoke-filled'  

                                                                                                                                                                                    

rooms."     But   Kohlhaas   does   not   explain   how   this   is   any   more   than   a   policy  

consideration.     Kohlhaas   also   argues   that   Initiative   2   infringes  on   the   Alaskan  

Independence Party's rules, which "provide that their candidates are to be selected by  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

Party   convention,"   and   that   the   Independence   Party   "does   not   desire   the   election  

mandated by [Initiative] 2." He also argues that the Republican Party bylaws provide for                                                                                                                          

a separate primary election.  But Initiative 2 is compatible with party rules:  under the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

law, parties may select nominees by whatever mechanism they wish.  

                                                                                                                                                                               



                 83               Compare Wash. State Grange, 552 U.S. at 453 (upholding Washington  

                                                                                                                                                                                          

primary election that "does not serve to determine the nominees of a political party but  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

serves to winnow the number of candidates to a final list of two for the general election"  

                                                                                                                                                                                                  

(quoting   WASH.                                ADMIN.                 CODE    §    434-262-012    (emergency    regulation))),    with  

                       

AS 15.25.010 ("The primary election does not serve to determine the nominee of a                                                                                                                                     

political party or political group but serves only to narrow the number of candidates                                                                                                         

whose names will appear on the ballot at the general election.").                                                                    



                                                                                                       -21-                                                                                                 7629
  


----------------------- Page 22-----------------------

                                                                                                                    84  

candidates "the de facto nominees of the parties                                             they prefer."                 Instead, the Court     



explained, "[t]he essence of nomination - the choice of a party representative - does                                                                

                                                 85   The same is true for Initiative 2.  

not occur under [the law]."                                                                                        



                        The Treadwell amici correctly note that the Alaska Constitution is more  

                                                                                                                                                    



protective of rights than the U.S. Constitution and argue that we should not follow  

                                                                                                                                                 



 Washington State Grange.  They argue we should scrutinize the constitutional burden  

                                                                                                                                                



more closely.  But looking more closely cannot reveal something that does not exist.  

                                                                                                                                                               



Because Initiative 2 takes the State out of the party nominating process entirely, it places  

                                                                                                                                                  



no burden on political parties' right to choose a standard bearer or on their right to  

                                                                                                                                                         

determine who can participate in making that choice.86  

                                                                                    



                                    ii.	        Kohlhaas fails to show that displaying candidates' party  

                                                                                                                                                   

                                                registration  on  the  ballot  forces  unwanted  association  

                                                                                                                                       

                                                upon political parties.  

                                                                                            



                        Kohlhaas insists that allowing candidates to designate a party on the ballot  

                                                                                                                                                   



violates political parties' associational rights because it "force[s] the political parties to  

                                                                                                                                                          



accept those candidates that they may or may not want . . . and allows the candidates to  

                                                                                                                                                          



identify themselves (truthfully or falsely) or hide their beliefs."  Kohlhaas also faults  

                                                                                                                                                   

Initiative 2 for not allowing the parties to indicate their nominees on the ballot.87                                                             These  

                                                                                                                                                  



            84           Wash. State Grange                  , 552 U.S. at 452-53.         



            85          Id . at 453.     



            86          Kohlhaas argues that Initiative 2 "prevent[s] public participation."  Yet  

                                                                                                                                                      

nothing in the Initiative prevents a political party from holding its own primary election  

                                                                                                                                               

or nominating convention and opening it to whatever members of the public it desires.  

                                                                                                                                                               

And  all  registered  voters  may  participate  in  the  State-run  nonpartisan  primary.  

                                                                                                                                                               

AS 15.15.025; see also AS 15.05.010.  

                                                   



            87          Despitemakingthisargumentonappeal, Kohlhaas concededto thesuperior  

                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                    (continued...)  



                                                                           -22-	                                                                   7629
  


----------------------- Page 23-----------------------

rules, Kohlhaas argues, will result in forced association: Voters, seeing on the ballot that                                                                                                                                                   



a candidate is registered with a particular political party, will believe that the party                                                                                                                                                  



supports that candidate and that the candidate supports that party's platform.                                                                                                                     



                                       Kohlhaas's assertion that a candidate can lie about party affiliation on the                                                                                                                              



ballot is incorrect.                                   A candidate may appear on the ballot as affiliated with a political                                                                                                     



party only if that candidate truly has registered with the Division ofElections as affiliated                                                                                                                                   

                                           88   The ballot and polling places must include a disclaimer explaining that  

with that party.                                                                                                                                                                                                                               



these designations mean "only that the candidate is registered as affiliated with the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

political  party."89                                     A  candidate  who  is  registered  with  one  party  can  choose  to  be  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



designated as nonpartisan or undeclared, but may not be listed on the ballot as registered  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

with  another  party.90   Candidates not registered with a political party may be designated  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                    91      Thus, candidates cannot lie about being affiliated  

only as nonpartisan or undeclared.                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                  



with a particular party.  

                                                                    



                                       Theoretically, a candidate could register with a political party whose beliefs  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



that candidate did not share to "usurp[] the party label as an election tactic," as Kohlhaas  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               



puts  it.  A  candidate's registration with a party  certainly suggests that the  candidate  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



supports at least some of the party's platform.  But that is not what the ballot says; it  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



presents only the fact that the candidate has registered as affiliated with the party. The  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



ballot does not suggest that the party endorses the candidate.  To the contrary, the ballot  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



                   87                  (...continued)
  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

court that political parties do not have the right to identify their nominees on the ballot.
  



                   88                  AS 15.25.030(a)(5); AS 15.15.030(5).                                   



                   89                  AS 15.15.030(14); AS 15.15.060(e).                                 



                   90                  See  AS 15.15.030(5).   



                   91                 Id.  



                                                                                                                       -23-                                                                                                                 7629
  


----------------------- Page 24-----------------------

                                                                                                     92  

expressly disclaims any such endorsement.                                                                 And parties can warn voters about Trojan                                           



horse candidates - those who might run under a party's banner but do not share the                                                                                                                   



                                   93  

party's values.                           



                                                                                                                                                

                                Just as the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized in  Washington State Grange  



                                                                                                                                                                                     

its  "faith  in  the  ability  of  individual  voters  to  inform  themselves  about  campaign  

                  94 we have also recognized that Alaska voters are not easily fooled.95  Kohlhaas's  

issues,"                                                                                                                                                                           



claim of associational harm presupposes that Alaskans will assume that a candidate's  

                                                                                                                                                                                 



statement of affiliation with a party means that the party endorses or approves of that  

                                                                                                                                                                                                    



candidate. But most people know that in politics, as in most areas of life, affection is not  

                                                                                                                                                                                                      



always a two-way street.  To reinforce that point, Alaska's ballots and polling places  

                                                                                                                                                                                              



must  include  a  disclaimer  that  a  candidate's  statement  of  party  affiliation  is  not  a  

                                                                                                                                                                                                         



                92              AS 15.15.030(14).   



                93              As Alaskans for Better Elections points out, under the pre-Initiative 2                                                                                                  



system candidates' party affiliation was printed after their names on the ballot.  Former  

                                                                                                                                                                                           

AS 15.15.030(5) (2020) (amended Feb. 28, 2021).                                                                           Thus candidates have always been                                        

able to register with a political party whose beliefs they do not share as a tactic to win                                                             

elections.  Initiative 2 changes nothing in that regard.  

                                                                                                              



                94              Wash.  State  Grange,  552  U.S.  442,  454  (2008)  (quoting  Tashjian  v.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208, 220 (1986)).  

                                                                                                                



                95              State  v.  Alaska  Democratic  Party,  426  P.3d  901,  913  (Alaska  2018)  

                                                                                                                                                                                              

(holding that concerns about voter confusion from descriptors like "nonpartisan" or  

                                                                                                                                                                                                       

"undeclared" "underestimate . . .  Alaska voters' common sense"); State of Alaska, Div.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                   

of Elections v. Green Party of Alaska, 118 P.3d 1054, 1068 (Alaska 2005) ("[W]e see  

                                                                                                       

no basis for predicting that Alaska voters might be incapable of understanding combined  

                                                                                                                                                                                      

ballots.  .  .  .  We  are  .  .  .  confident  that  Alaska  voters  would  have  little  trouble  

                                                                                                                                                                                           

understanding and choosing between combined ballots.").  

                                                                                                                                            



                                                                                                  -24-                                                                                           7629
  


----------------------- Page 25-----------------------

                                                                                           96  

statement of approval or endorsement by the party.                                              With this safeguard, and with our                     



confidence   in   Alaska   voters'   common   sense,   we   cannot   presume   that   voters   will  



                                                                                                                                                         97  

misinterpret a candidate's statement of party affiliation as a party's seal of approval.                                                                      



                                                                                                                 

And Kohlhaas has not presented any evidence to suggest they will.  



                                                                                                                                               

                        The Treadwell amici again urge us not to follow Washington State Grange  



                                                                                                                     

because the Alaska Constitution is more protective of political parties' associational  

                                                                    98   They argue that "[i]t is a substantial burden to  

                                                                                                                                           

interests than the federal constitution. 



force a party to see its brand associated with someone who is not a member."  

                                                                                                                          



                        The key question when analyzing this claim of forced association is, as  

                                                                                                                                                        



Chief Justice John Roberts reasoned in his concurrence in  Washington State Grange,  

                                                                                                                                             

"whether  voters perceive  the  candidate  and  the  party  to  be  associated."99                                                             "Voter  

                                                                                                                                               



perceptions matter," he explained, "and if voters do not actually believe the parties and  

                                                                                                                                                      



the candidates are tied together, it is hard to see how the parties' associational rights are  

                                                                                                                                                       

                                         100    There is no question that display of party affiliation on the  

adversely implicated."                                                                                                                                

                   

                                                                                                                               101   But "[i]f the  

ballot is significant because of "the effect it has on voter impressions."                                                                             

                                                                                                       



ballot [were] designed in such a manner that no reasonable voter would believe that the  

                                                                                                                                                       



            96          AS 15.15.030(14); AS 15.15.060(e).         



            97  

                                                                                                                                                      

                        Cf. Alaska Democratic Party, 426 P.3d at 913 ("We are confident the  

                                                                                                                                                     

Division of Elections will be able to design a ballot that voters can understand. . . .  The  

                                                                                                                                           

ballot could include prominent disclaimers explaining that a candidate's party affiliation  

                                                                                                            

denotes only the candidate's voter registration and nothing more.").  



            98          Id. at 909.  

                                   



            99          552 U.S. at 459 (Roberts, C.J., concurring) (emphasis in original).  

                                                                                                                               



            100         Id . at 460.  

                                   



            101         Id.  



                                                                          -25-                                                                     7629
  


----------------------- Page 26-----------------------

candidates listed there are nominees or members of, or otherwise associated with, the                                                                         



parties the candidates claimed to 'prefer,' . . . [Washington's] primary system would                                                                   

                                                                102   "Voters would understand that the candidate does  

likely pass constitutional muster."                                                                                                                        

not speak on the party's behalf or with the party's approval."103  Chief Justice Roberts  

                                                                                  



concluded that the facial challenge to the law failed because the challengers had not  

                                                                                                                                                              

shown it was impossible to design a ballot that would avoid misleading voters.104  

                                                                                                                                         



                         Kohlhaas and the Treadwell amici fall short in similar fashion here.  True,  

                                                                                                                                                          



the  Alaska  Constitution  is  more  protective  of  associational  rights  than  the  federal  

                                                                                                                                                      



constitution.  But a party arguing that an election law violates the Alaska Constitution  

                                                                                                                              



must still show that the law burdens these rights.  Kohlhaas and the Treadwell amici  

                                                                                                                                    



presented no evidence that displaying candidates' party registration on the ballot creates  

                                                                                                                                                       



a meaningful risk of confusing voters. And unless voters will be tricked into perceiving  

                                                                                                                                                



an association that does not exist, there is scant burden on a party's associational rights.  

                                                                                                                                                                      



                         3.	          Initiative 2's nonpartisan open primary advances important  

                                                                                                                                               

                                      regulatory interests.  

                                                                                



                         Having determined that Initiative 2 places only a minor burden on parties'  

                                                                                                                                                      



associational rights, we now examine the fit between the legislation and the interest it is  

                                                                                                                                                                



said to advance.  Because all "[e]lection laws will invariably impose some burden upon  

                                                                                                                                                           



             102         Id.  



             103         Id.  at 461.   



             104         Id. at 460-61.  

                                     



                                                                              -26-	                                                                       7629
  


----------------------- Page 27-----------------------

                              105                                                                106  

individual voters,"               "states must be granted some leeway."                               "[M]odest or minimal     



burdens   require   only   that   the   law   is   reasonable,  non-discriminatory,   and   advances  

'important regulatory interests.' "                   107  



                                                                                                                          

                     The ballot for Initiative 2 described the intent behind the open primary:  



                                                                                                        

                     It  is  in  the  public  interest  of  Alaska  to  adopt  a  primary  

                                                                                                               

                     election  system  that  is  open  and  nonpartisan,  which  will  

                                                                                                                

                     generate  more  qualified  and  competitive  candidates  for  

                                                                                                                  

                     elected office, boost voter turnout, better reflect the will of  

                                                                                                  

                     the electorate, reward cooperation, and reduce partisanship  

                                                           [108]  

                                              

                     among elected officials. 



The State asserts that allowing candidates to designate their party registrations provides  

                                                                                                                             



voters  with  relevant  information  about  the  candidates  they  are  choosing  between.  

                                                                                                                                            



Kohlhaas dismisses these interests as "just words and the speculation of the persons who  

                                                                                                                                    



wrote the initiative."  

                 



                     We have held similar interests important and legitimate in the primary  

                                                                                                                              



election  context.             In  O'Callaghan  v.  State  we  upheld  Alaska's  previous  "blanket  

                                                                                                                            

primary" system against a challenge based on political parties' associational rights.109  

                                                                                                                                            



In the blanket primary, candidates from all parties were listed on a single ballot that was  

                                                                                                                                     



           105       O'Callaghan v. State,  914  P.2d  1250, 1253 (Alaska 1996)  (quoting  Burdick  



v.  Takushi,  504  U.S.  428,  433-34  (1992)).  



           106       State,  Div.   of  Elections   v.   Green  Party   of  Alaska ,   118   P.3d   1054,   1059  



(Alaska  2005);  see  also   Wash.  State   Grange,  552  U.S.  at  452  ("[W]e  have  repeatedly  

upheld   reasonable,   politically   neutral   regulations   that   have   the   effect   of   channeling  

expressive  activity  at  the  polls."  (quoting  Burdick,  504  U.S.  at  438)).  



           107       State  v.  Alaska  Democratic  Party,  426  P.3d  901,  909  (Alaska  2018)  

                                                                                                                                

(quoting O'Callaghan, 914 P.2d at 1254).  

                                                          



           108       Alaska Ballot Initiative 2, § 1(4) (2020) (statement of findings and intent).  

                                                                                                                               



           109       914 P.2d at 1263.  

                                         



                                                                  -27-                                                            7629
  


----------------------- Page 28-----------------------

                                                                110  

given to all primary voters.                                           A voter could cast a single vote for any party's candidate,                                                     



                                                                                                                  111  

regardless of that voter's own party registration.                                                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                                         The top vote recipient for each party  

                                                                                                                     112     After determining that the blanket  

                                                                                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                 

was the party's nominee for the general election. 



primary  placed  only  a  modest  burden  on  political  parties'  associational  rights,  we  

                                                                                                                                                                                                       



decided that the system was justified by the "legitimate and important" interests of  

                                                                                                                                                                                                         



encouraging voter turnout, maximizing  voters' choices of candidates, and ensuring  

                                                                                                                                                                                         

elected officials are representative of their constituencies.113  

                                                                                                                                                  



                                The U.S. Supreme Court later ruled in  California Democratic Party v.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                          

Jones  that California's similar blanket primary system was unconstitutional.114                                                                                                                     The  

                                                                                                                                                                                                    



Court ruled that the blanket primary placed a severe burden on parties' associational  

                                                                                                                                                                                



rights and therefore had to be narrowly tailored to advance compelling governmental  

                                                                                                                                                                              

                      115     The Court explained that two of the interests put forward to justify the law  

interests.                                                                                                                                                                                            



                110             Id.  at 1255.   



                111             Id.  



                112             For purposes of our analysis, the key difference between a blanket primary                                                                                  



 system, like the one Alaska used to use, and                                                                      the open nonpartisan primary system                                       

                                                                                                                                                                                                

adopted by Initiative 2, is that the former systemchooses the parties' nominees for office,  

while the latter system does not.                                                See Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican                                                  

Party, 552 U.S. 451, 453 (2008) (distinguishing California's blanket primary struck                                                                                                             

down in             California Democratic Party v. Jones                                                     , 530 U.S. 567 (2000) from Washington's                          

nonpartisan open primary by pointing out that under the latter system "[t]he essence of                                                                                                                   

nomination - the choice of a party representative - does not occur").                                                                                                       



                113             O'Callaghan, 914 P.2d at 1261-63.  

                                                                                                



                114             530 U.S. 567 (2000).  

                                                                                     



                115             Id. at 581-82 (explaining that California's blanket primary "forces [parties]  

                                                                                                                                                                                            

to adulterate their candidate-selection process . . . by opening it up to persons wholly  

                                                                                                                                                                                              

unaffiliated with the party," with the "likely outcome . . . of changing the parties'  

                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                                                                               (continued...)  



                                                                                                   -28-                                                                                            7629
  


----------------------- Page 29-----------------------

-   "producing   elected   officials  who  better   represent   the   electorate   and   expanding  



                                                                                                                                       116  

candidate debate beyond the scope of partisan concerns" - were not legitimate at all.                                                        



Instead the Court characterized them as "simply circumlocution for producing nominees  

                                                                                                                            



and nominee positions other than those the parties would choose if left to their own  

                                                                                                                                    

devices," "nothing more than a stark repudiation of freedom of political association."117  

                                                                                                                                             



Other asserted interests -including affording voters greater choice and increasing voter  

                                                                                                                                   



participation - were not similarly suspect, but the Court concluded they were not  

                                                                                                                                      



compelling in the context of the case and did not justify the blanket primary's severe  

                                                                                                                                 

burden on associational rights.118  

                                                       



                     Jones calls into question the legitimacy of some, but not all, of the interests  

                                                                                                                               

put forward to justify Initiative 2's nonpartisan open primary.119                                         Although the Court  

                                                                                                                                  



           115        (...continued)  



                                                                                                                       

message," concluding there was "no heavier burden on a political party's associational  

freedom").  



           116       Id. at 582.  

                                



           117       Id.  



           118       Id. at 584-85.  

                                



           119       We question whether the Supreme Court's view that the goal of producing  

                                                                                                                           

elected officials with wider support among the electorate is an illegitimate goal and a  

                                                                                                                                          

"stark repudiation of freedom of political association" holds true when the primary  

                                                                                                                              

system  is  entirely  decoupled  from  a  political  party's  process  of  choosing  its  own  

                                                                                                                                    

nominees.  Under the blanket primary system struck down by the Court, the primary  

                                                                                                                               

election determined each party's nominee for the general election.   Id.  at 570. The  

                                                                                                                                     

governmental objective of changing the type of candidate that would become the party's  

                                                                                                                                 

nominee was therefore antithetical to the party's ability to make that choice itself.  But  

                                                                                                                                      

Initiative 2's nonpartisan primary election process does not determine political parties'  

                                                                                                                                

nominees.            Within  this  context,  structuring  the  primary  election  process  so  that  

                                                                                                                               

advancing candidates better represent the entire electorate - i.e. are more acceptable to  

                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                                     (continued...)  



                                                                  -29-                                                             7629
  


----------------------- Page 30-----------------------

concluded   that increasing voter                                  turnout and voters'                        choice of candidates could                                not  



support a severe burden on associational rights, its holding does not undermine our                                                                                    



conclusion in                 O'Callaghan   that these interests are important and legitimate.                                                                   These  



interests may still justify a modest burden on associational rights.                                                                     And the Supreme     



Court concluded that displaying candidates' party registration on the ballot is justified   

by the important goal of providing relevant information to voters.                                                                  120  



                           In lieu of trying to show that Initiative 2 fails to advance these interests,  

                                                                                                                                                             



Kohlhaas makes a series of irrelevant arguments.   First, he argues that Initiative 2's  

                                                                                                                                                                        



sponsors specifically intended to abolish the party primary system.  But that intent is  

                                                                                                                                                                           



simply the means to the ends described above and does not negate the legitimacy of those  

                                                                                                                                                                    



goals.  And as explained above, decoupling the primary election from the parties' own  

                                                                                                                                                                      



                                                                                                                                   121  

nominating process does not burden parties' associational rights.                                                                         

                                                                                                                       



                           Second, he argues that the campaign supporting Initiative 2 focused on the  

                                                                                                                                                                         



supposedly more-popular dark money disclosure provision and the law nonetheless  

                                                                                                                                                      



passed by a narrow margin.  To the extent he is arguing that it was improper to combine  

                                                                                                                                                             



              119          (...continued)  



                                                                                                                                                          

more voters - seems entirely legitimate.  Cf. id. at 572 ("[I]n order to avoid burdening  

                                                                                                                                                                          

the general election ballot with frivolous candidacies, a State may require parties to  

                                                                                                                                                                   

demonstrate 'a significant modicum of support' before allowing their candidates a place  

                                                                                                                                                                     

on that ballot."  (quoting Jenness v. Fortson,  403  U.S.  431, 442 (1971))).                                                                                  In  fact,  

                                                                                                                                                                    

ensuring that an election produces a winner most acceptable to the electorate is a basic  

                                                                                                                                                                        

premise of democracy. Because the parties do not address the issues raised by Jones, and  

                                                                                                                                                          

because  Initiative  2's  nonpartisan  open  primary  is  supported  by  other  important  

                                                                                                                                  

regulatory interests, we need not conclusively decide this point.  



              120          Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 458  

                                                                                                                                                                       

(2008).  



              121          Cf. id. at 453 ("Whether parties nominate their own candidates outside the  

                                                                                                                                                                         

state-run primary is simply irrelevant.").  

                                                        



                                                                                   -30-                                                                             7629
  


----------------------- Page 31-----------------------

these election reforms in a single ballot initiative, we rejected that argument in                                                                           Meyer v.   



Alaskans   for  Better   Elections ,   holding   that   Initiative   2   did   not   violate   the   Alaska  



Constitution's   requirement   that   all   non-appropriation   bills   "be   confined   to   one  

                  122     To the extent he is arguing that Initiative 2's changes to the primary and  

 subject."                                                                                                                                                             



general elections would not have passed without being combined with campaign finance  

                                                                                                                                                                



reforms, that is irrelevant to the constitutionality of those changes.  

                                                                                                                                        



                           Kohlhaas's thirdargument isequally irrelevant: that atop-four nonpartisan  

                                                                                                                                                        



primary  is  not  used  anywhere  else  and  that  "Alaska  should  not  be  used  as  an  

                                                                                                                                                                         



experiment."  That is a policy argument, not a legal one.  

                                                                                                                    



                           Finally, he argues that similar initiatives were rejected for the ballot in  

                                                                                                                                                                          



North Dakota and Arkansas. These cases are not on point because those ballot initiatives  

                                                                                                                                                           

were rejected for procedural reasons, not because of the substance of those laws.123  

                                                                                                                                                         



                           Neither  Kohlhaas  nor  the  Treadwell  amici  seriously  argue  that  the  

                                                                                                                                                             



nonpartisan primary does not advance to at least some degree the interests put forward  

                                                                                                                                                               

                       124                                                                                                                                       125  it is  

                              In a state where most voters identify as undeclared or nonpartisan,                                                                          

to justify it.                                                                                                                           

                    



              122          465 P.3d 477, 482, 499 (Alaska 2020) (applying Alaska Const. art. II,                                                                          



 § 13).        



              123          Haugen v. Jaeger, 948 N.W.2d 1, 3-4 (N.D. 2020) (holding petition did not  

                                                                                                                                                                         

comply with the state constitutional requirement that it contain the measure's full text);  

                                                                                                                                                                    

Ark.  Voters  First  v.  Thurston ,  No.  CV-20-454,                                                   2020  WL  5056585,  at  *1-2  (Ark.  

                                                                                                                                                        

Aug. 27, 2020) (holding that law's supporters failed to verify that their paid canvassers  

                                                                                                                                                         

had passed criminal background checks as required by law).  

                                                                                                                



              124          The Treadwell amici argue only that the nonpartisan primary places a  

                                                                                                                                                                            

 severe burden on associational rights and fails strict scrutiny; they do not argue that, if  

                                                                                                                                                                            

the burden on associational rights is only minor, the law is nonetheless unconstitutional.  

                                                                                                                                                                                



              125          E.g., STATE OF                ALASKA  DIV. O                 F  ELECTIONS,  Number of Registered Voters                                

                                      

by Party Within Precinct                            , (Sept. 3, 2020) https://www.elections.alaska.gov/statistics/         

                                                                                                                                                   (continued...)  



                                                                                   -31-                                                                             7629
  


----------------------- Page 32-----------------------

certainly plausible that allowing any person to run in the primary election and appeal to                                                                                                    



the entire spectrum of registered voters - not just to voters of a specific party - will                                                                             



encourage more candidates to run and boost voter turnout.                                                                         Kohlhaas and the Treadwell               



amici have not presented any evidence showing otherwise.                                                                             They therefore have failed                      



to meet their burden in this facial challenge to show that the nonpartisan primary lacks                                                                                              

a "plainly legitimate sweep."                                    126  



               B.	            Initiative 2's Nonpartisan Open Primary Does Not Violate The Alaska  

                                                                                                                                                                                 

                              Constitution's Provision For Electing The Lieutenant Governor.  

                                                                                                                                                                                         



                              Kohlhaas argues that Initiative 2 violates article III, section 8 of the Alaska  

                                                                                                                                                                                  



Constitution, which provides:  

                                              



                              The lieutenant governor shall be nominated in the manner  

                                                                                                                                                  

                              provided by law for nominating candidates for other elective  

                                                                                                                                                  

                              offices.  In the general election the votes cast for a candidate  

                                                                                                                                              

                              for governor shall be considered as cast also for the candidate  

                                                                                                                                               

                              for  lieutenant  governor  running  jointly  with  him.                                                                      The  

                                                                                                                                                        

                              candidate whose name appears on the ballot jointly with that  

                                                                                                                                                           

                              of  the  successful  candidate  for  governor  shall  be  elected  

                                                                                                                                                   

                              lieutenant governor.  

                                                      



Kohlhaas seems to misread Initiative 2 to preclude governor and lieutenant governor  

                                                                                                                                                                             

candidates from running together.127                                                 To the contrary, the law requires candidates for  

                                                                                                                                                                                          



               125            (...continued)  



                                                                                                                                                                                    

2020/SEP/VOTERS%20BY%20PARTY%20AND%20PRECINCT.htm(showing57.7%  

                                                                                     

of registered voters as nonpartisan or undeclared).  



               126            State v. Planned Parenthood of the Great Nw., 436 P.3d 984, 991-92  

                                                                                                                                                                                 

(Alaska 2019).  

                   



               127            He argues:   "The joint candidacy required for the Constitution for the  

                                                                                                                                                                                          

general election cannot be created under Proposition 2.  Two candidates running as a  

                                                                                                                                                                     

team in the primary election is not authorized or mandated under Proposition 2."  

                                                                                                                                                                              



                                                                                            -32-	                                                                                     7629
  


----------------------- Page 33-----------------------

governor   and   lieutenant governor                                    to  run together                 on both           the primary               and   general  



                                128  

election ballots.                     



                           The Treadwell amici make a different argument.  They argue that because  

                                                                                                                                                              



article III, section 8 requires lieutenant governor candidates to be "nominated in the  

                                                                                                                                                                       



manner provided by law for nominating candidates for other elective offices," lieutenant  

                                                                                                                                                          



governor  candidates  must  "run[]  solo  in  a  partisan  primary  on  the  same  basis  as  

                                                                                                                                                                         



candidates for other offices" before being paired with the gubernatorial candidate of the  

                                                                                                                                                                        



same political party on the general election ballot. According to this theory, Initiative 2,  

                                                                                                                                                                          



which pairs the governor and lieutenant governor candidates on a primary ballot, is  

                                                                                                                                                                          



unconstitutional.  



                           "Our  analysis  of  a  constitutional  provision  begins  with,  and  remains  

                                                                                                                                                             

                                                                                             129   "We are not vested with the authority  

grounded in, the words of the provision itself."                                                                                                            

                                                                                



to  add  missing  terms  or  hypothesize  differently  worded  provisions  .  .  .  to  reach  a  

                                                                                                                                                                           

                                   130  "We instead 'look to the plain meaning and purpose of the provision  

particular result."                                                                                                                                        

                     

                                                              131   This includes "the Delegates' debates and statements  

and the intent of the framers.' "                                                                                                                        

                                                            



              128          See  AS15.25.030(a)(16)-(17) (requiring governor andlieutenantgovernor                                                           



candidates  to   list   their   running   mate   when   filing   for   candidacy);   AS   15.15.030(5)  

(mandating that "[t]he lieutenant governor and the governor shall be included under the                                                                                 

same section" on the general election ballot); AS 15.25.060 (providing the same for the                                                                                 

primary election ballot).          



              129          Wielechowski v. State, 403 P.3d 1141, 1146 (Alaska 2017) (quoting Hickel  

                                                                                                                                                                 

v. Cowper, 874 P.2d 922, 927 (Alaska 1994)).  

                                                                               



              130          Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Hickel, 874 P.2d at 927-28).  

                                                                                                                                         



              131          Id. (quoting Hickel, 874 P.2d at 926).  

                                                                                            



                                                                                   -33-                                                                            7629
  


----------------------- Page 34-----------------------

                                                       132  

in interpreting the constitution"                            as well as "the historical context, including events                         

preceding ratification."133                                                 

                                              "Because of our concern for interpreting the constitution as  



                                                                                                                              

the people ratified it, we generally are reluctant to construe abstrusely any constitutional  



                                                                                                                                               

term that has a plain ordinary meaning," and we give provisions "a reasonable and  



                                                                                                      134  

                                                                                           

practical interpretation in accordance with common sense." 



                       Neither text nor history supports the argument that the constitution requires  

                                                                                                                                        



candidates for lieutenant governor to run solo in a partisan primary election. Article III,  

                                                                                                                                                



section  8  does  not  use  the  term "primary."                                 The  language  it  does  use  to  describe  

                                                                                                                                 



nomination of candidates for lieutenant governor - "nominated in the manner provided  

                                                                                                                                      



by law" for other candidates - is broad enough to include other processes, such as party  

                                                                                                                                             



convention or gathering signatures.  The proceedings of the constitutional convention  

                                                                                                                                  



confirm the lack of specificity:  one delegate to the constitutional convention noted "it  

                                                                               



would probably be very unwise" to adopt a reference to party primaries in the lieutenant  

                                                                                                                                     



governor provision because "[t]here might not always be a primary" if the legislature  

                                                                                                                                   

                                                                                     135  The language of article III, section  

changed the law to allow nominating conventions.                                                                                         

                                                                



8 was deliberately left broad so that, in the words of one delegate, "the [lieutenant  

                                                                                                                                  



governor] would  run  as provided  by  law for all  other  candidates,  and  if they  ever  

                                                                                                                                             



            132        Forrer  v.  State,  471  P.3d  569,  587  (Alaska  2020).
  



            133        Wielechowski,   403   P.3d   at   1147   (quoting   State   v.   Ketchikan   Gateway
  



Borough,  366  P.3d  86,  90  (Alaska  2016)).  



            134        Id . at 1146 (quoting Hickel, 874 P.2d at 926).  

                                  

                                                                                             



            135        3 Proceedings of the Alaska Constitutional Convention (PACC) 2044-45  

                                                                                                                                       

(Jan. 13, 1956) (statement of Del. Victor Rivers).  

                                                                        



                                                                       -34-                                                                 7629
  


----------------------- Page 35-----------------------

abolished the system of primary election and went back to the convention system, [the]                                                      

language would still be broad enough to make it flexible."                                         136  



                       Yet the kernel of the Treadwell amici's argument - that Initiative 2's  

                                                                                                                                              



nominating process for the lieutenant governor is constitutionally suspect because it is  

                                                                                                                                                 



not exactly the same as the nominating process for other candidates - is not so easily  

                                                                                                  



dismissed. The key inquiry is just how precisely the manner of nominating the lieutenant  

                                                                                                                                   



governor  must  match  the  manner  in  which  other  candidates  for  elective  office  are  

                                                                                                                                              



nominated.  

                      



                       The constitutional text does not clearly answer this question.  The phrase  

                                                                                                                                



"in the manner" could reasonably be read to mean that lieutenant governor candidates  

                                                                             



must be nominated in exactly the same manner, but "exactly the same" is not the only  

                                                                                                                                            



common-sense reading of "in the manner."   The constitutional text does not tell us  

                                                                                                                                               



whether the delegates intended that lieutenant governor candidates be elected in exactly  

                                                                                                                                        



the same manner or in the same general manner, with some flexibility to facilitate pairing  

                                                                                                                                        



with a compatible gubernatorial candidate on the general election ballot.  

                                                                                                                             



                       Theconstitutional history ofarticleIII, section 8doesnotoffer crystal-clear  

                                                                                                                               



guidance  either.                What  the  history  does  suggest  is  that  the  delegates  adopted  a  

                                                                                                                                 



compromise  provision  -  balancing  the  desire  for  a  lieutenant  governor  to  be  

                                                                                                                                              



meaningfully vetted by the voting public with the desire to ensure political compatibility  

                                                                                                                             



with the governor - that was flexible enough to accommodate future changes the  

                                                                                                                                              



legislature (or the people) might make to the election system.  

                                                                                            



                       Article  III,  section  8  originated  with  a  proposal  from  the  delegates'  

                                                                                                                                 



Committee on the Executive Branch that did not mention how the lieutenant governor  

                                                  



- originally called the secretary of state - was to be nominated, providing only for  

                                                                                                                                              



           136         3  PACC  2140  (Jan.   14,   1956)  (statement  of  Del.  Ralph  Rivers).  



                                                                      -35-                                                                     7629  


----------------------- Page 36-----------------------

                                                                                                                                                                                    137  

election "at the same time and for the same term as the governor."                                                                                                                          A ballot cast for a                            



gubernatorial candidate was to                                                            be treated                    as a ballot cast for                                     the secretary                          of state   



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        138  

candidate "shown on the ballot as running jointly with" the gubernatorial candidate.                                                                                                                                                             



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

The proposal did not specify how this pairing was to be achieved.   A delegate who  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

served  on  the  Committee  on  the  Executive  Branch  explained  that  the  system  was  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

designed to ensure that the secretary of state "would come from the same political party  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

which the governor came from, so, in the manner in which the President and Vice  



                                                                                                                                                                            139  

                                                                                                                                                                                    

President is elected, we selected the joint ballot type of thing." 



                                     The delegates debated the proposal over two days and initially approved  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



an  amendment  abolishing  the  proposal  entirely  -  removing  the  secretary  of  state  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



entirely  from  the  constitution,  leaving  the  matter  to  the  legislature  -  before  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

                                        140  DelegateVictor Rivers, whoserved on theCommitteeontheExecutive  

reconsidering.                                                                                                                                                                                                     



Branch  and  presented  the  original  proposal,  ultimately  offered  an  amendment  "to  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



effectuate the ideas submitted and discussed in Committee and on th[e] floor" during the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



                   137               See  Constitutional Convention Committee Proposal No. 10/a, § 6 (Jan. 12,                                                                                                                        



 1956) ("There shall be a secretary of state, who shall have the same qualifications as the                                                                                                                                           

governor.  He shall be elected at the same time and for the same term as the governor,                                                                                                                             

and the election procedure prescribed by law shall provide that the electors, in casting     

their vote for governor shall also be deemed to be casting their vote for the candidate for                                                                                                                                           

secretary of state shown on the ballot as running jointly with the respective candidate for                                                                                                                                            

governor.    The candidate for secretary of state who runs jointly with the successful                                                                                                                           

candidate for governor shall be elected secretary of state.").                                                                                 



                   138              Id.  



                   139               3 PACC 1985 (Jan. 13, 1956) (statement of Del. Victor Rivers).  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



                   140              Id. atPACC 2089-93; 3 PACC 2128, 2143 (Jan. 14, 1956).  

                                                                                                                                                                                     



                                                                                                                  -36-                                                                                                          7629
  


----------------------- Page 37-----------------------

                                141  

two-day   debate.                       This   amendment  was   approved   by   a   voice   vote   without   any  

additional debate, becoming article III, section 8.                                            142  



                          It  is  clear  from  the  convention  history  that  the  delegates  wanted  to  

                                                                                                                                                                  



guarantee that the governor and secretary of state would not work at cross-purposes,  

                                                                                                                                         



aiming to ensure they hailed from the same political party (and, ideally, the same faction  

                                                                                                                                                          

of that party).143                  And although some delegates wanted the governor to appoint the  

                                                                                                                                                                

secretary of state to maximize the strength of the executive,144  those delegates were  

                                                                                                                                                             

outnumbered, with most preferring that the secretary of state be elected in some way.145  

                                                                                                                                                                         



             141          3  PACC  2144  (Jan.   14,   1956).  



             142         Id.  at  2145;  see  Alaska  Const.  art.  III,  §  8  (amended  1970) ("The lieutenant                                    



governor  shall  be  nominated  in  the  manner  provided  by  law  for  nominating candidates  

                                                                                                                                                   

for other elective offices.                          In the general election the votes cast for a candidate for                                                 

governor shall be considered as cast also for                                               the candidate for lieutenant governor                    

running jointly with him.  The candidate whose name appears on the ballot jointly with  

                                                                                                                                                              

that of the successful candidate for governor shall be elected lieutenant governor.").                                                    



             143          See, e.g., 3 PACC1985-86 (Jan. 13, 1956) (statement ofDel. Victor Rivers)  

                                                                                                                                                         

("In order to enforce and bulwark the strong executive, it was felt that we should provide  

                                                                                                                                                        

some means by which [the secretary of state] would come from the same political party  

                                                                                                                                                             

which the governor came from . . . .");  id. at 2081 (statement of Del. John Boswell)  

                                                                                                                                                     

(arguing that "[t]he important thing . . . here" is that the governor and secretary of state  

                                                                                                                                                              

be from the same political party); id. at 2087-89 (defeating amendment that would have  

                                                                                                                                                              

elected governor and secretary of state separately, with Delegate John McNees noting  

                                                                             

it could result in election of candidates opposed to one another).  

                                                                                                           



             144         Id. at 2007 (statement of Del. Seaborn Buckalew) (questioning whether the  

                                                                                                                                                                 

state "would get a better secretary of state if the governor was allowed to appoint the  

                                                                                                                                                                 

secretary of state subject to approval by the senate"); id. at 2070 (statement of Del. John  

                                                                                                                                                              

Hellenthal) (arguing delegates should "just let our governor hire someone to help him  

                                                                                                                                                               

and fire him when he does not want him").  

                                                                       



             145         Id.  at 2007 (statement of Del. Victor Rivers) (explaining it would be a  

                                                                                                                                                                    

                                                                                                                                             (continued...)  



                                                                               -37-                                                                          7629
  


----------------------- Page 38-----------------------

                                                      Because the delegates did not adopt the original proposal resembling the                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



vice-presidential   model   and   instead  chose   to   require   the   lieutenant   governor   to   be  



nominated in the manner of other elected officials, one can infer that the delegates                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



wanted voters to have more power to choose a lieutenant governor than they have to                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



choose the vice president under the federal constitution. If this was in fact the delegates'                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



intent, Initiative 2 fulfills it.                                                                                 



                                                      Initiative   2   gives   voters   more   power   to   choose   lieutenant   governor  



candidates by giving voters a say earlier in the process and by increasing the number of                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



candidates   to   choose   from.     In   the   presidential   election,   a   voter   who   votes   for   a  



successful   candidate   in  the   primary   may   be   disappointed   with   that   candidate's  



subsequent choice of vice president, but because of the limited options at the general                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



election the voter is largely stuck with whomever thepreferred                                                                                                                                                                                        presidential candidate has   



chosen.   Under Initiative 2, Alaska voters will not be stuck with an unpleasant surprise.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



The voter knows in the primary election precisely who the gubernatorial candidate has                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



chosen as a running mate. And because Initiative 2 does not limit the number of primary                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



candidates,   a   voter   is   likelier   to   find   more   than   a   single   gubernatorial   candidate  



compatible with the voter's beliefs.  The voter can therefore give weight to the choice                                                                                                                                                                                   



of lieutenant governor candidate in the primary election, when the voter's options are not                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



so limited.  Although Initiative 2 does not give voters quite as much power to directly                                         



choose a lieutenant governor candidate as the prior system of partisan primaries did, it                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               



still gives voters more choice than the federal system.                                                                                                                                                                    



                           145                        (...continued)  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

"disadvantage"  if  the  governor's  successor  never  faced  an  election  and  that  the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

committee believed that "the people wanted an expression in the matter of just more than  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

one individual"); 3 PACC 2135 (Jan. 14, 1956) (statement of Chair William Egan)  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

(explaining he was "opposed to having the man who would be next in line in succession  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

to the governorship not actually elected in some manner by the people of the new state").  



                                                                                                                                                                       -38-                                                                                                                                                              7629
  


----------------------- Page 39-----------------------

                            The Treadwell amici argue that by pairing the governor and lieutenant                                                                 



governor candidates in the primary election, Initiative 2 creates a "buddy system" that                             



delegates to the constitutional convention derided.                                                         This argument mischaracterizes the                                   



terms of the debate.                       Most of the delegates who used the term "buddy" or "flunky" were                                                                  

                                                                                                                    146     They believed the governor  

opposed to having the secretary of state elected at all.                                                                                                            



should have the power to appoint the secretary of state for the sake of efficiency and  

                                                                                                                                                                               

competence.147   These delegates feared that requiring the secretary of state to be elected  

                                                                                                                                                                         



in tandemwith the governor would yield lieutenant governor candidates chosen for more  

                                                                                                                                                                             

political considerations than for ability or compatibility with the governor.148                                                                                          Those  

                                                                                                                                                                         



delegates lost the debate -the constitution requires the lieutenant governor to be elected  

                                                                                                                                                                         



together with the governor.  Thus to the extent Initiative 2 adopts a "buddy" system, it  

                                                                                                                                                                                     



is a system that the majority of delegates approved.  

                                                                                        



                            The previous system of partisan primaries that the Treadwell amici favor  

                                                                                                                                                                            



is no more faithful to the policies behind article III, section 8 than Initiative 2. A system  

                                                                                                                                                                         



in which candidates for lieutenant governor run solo in a party primary, as they did  

                                                                                                                                                                                



before Initiative 2, does give voters the power to nominate candidates for lieutenant  

                                                                                                                                                                  



governor independently of their preference for governor.  But that virtue comes at the  

                                                                                                                                                                                 



expense of the delegates' other priority:  ensuring compatibility between governor and  

                                                                                                                                                                                



              146           See   3   PACC   2081,   2089   (Jan.  13,   1956)   (statement   of   Del.   Seaborn  



Buckalew);  id.  at 2070 (statement of Del. John Hellenthal); 3 PACC 2128-29 (Jan. 14,                                                                                           

 1956) (same).                 



              147           See 3 PACC 2067 (Jan. 13, 1956) (statement of Del. Seaborn Buckalew);  

                                                                                                                                                               

id. at 2070 (statement of Del. John Hellenthal); 3 PACC 2142 (Jan. 14, 1956) (statement  

                                                                                                                                                                  

of Del. Seaborn Buckalew).  

                                   



              148           See  3  PACC 2004,  2067  (Jan.  13,  1956)  (statements  of  Del.  Seaborn  

                                                                                                                                                                     

Buckalew); id. at 2070 (statement of Del. John Hellenthal).  

                                                                                                     



                                                                                       -39-                                                                                  7629
  


----------------------- Page 40-----------------------

lieutenant governor.                                                              There is no guarantee that nominees of the same party, elected                                                                                                                                                                 



 separately, will be ideologically or temperamentally compatible.                                                                                                                                                                                          Initiative 2's system                                  



of pairing candidates for governor and lieutenant governor in the primary election is far                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



more likely to achieve that result.                                                                                                      In short, although Initiative 2 effects a different                                                                                                              



balance   between   the   delegates'   conflicting   goals   of   compatibility   and   independent  



electoral legitimacy than a partisan primary, neither system is inherently more faithful                                                                                                                                                         



to the delegates' goals.                                                                  



                                                   Also important to the delegates was to craft a provision that would allow   



thelegislatureflexibilityin                                                                           structuring elections. Delegate                                                                                        Victor Rivers, responsiblefor   



both the original and final proposals, stated:                                                                                                  



                                                    [I]t   would   probably  be   very   unwise   to   pinpoint   in   the  

                                                    constitutional section here a method of conducting elections                                                                                                                                        

                                                    such as set up that the primary shall do this or that.                                                                                                                                                       There  

                                                   might not always be a primary.                                                                                               There might be some time                                                                

                                                   when nominating conventions will be reverted to as they are                                                                                                                                                                

                                                    in some states.                                         [149]  



Theresponsibility "to make a fair and just manner ofnominating"governor and secretary  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

of state candidates, he added, should be "left up to the legislature."150   Delegate Thomas  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



Harris, who also served on the Committee on the Executive, explained that its members  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



were concerned primarily with the line of gubernatorial succession and had "not set any  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               



definite rules of how [governor and secretary of state candidates] are to be tied up on the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

ticket.  That is to be done later on by the legislature."151                                                                                                                                                                   And Delegate Ralph Rivers,  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



describing the amendment that would become article III, section 8, stated that "[t]he  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



                          149                      Id . at 2044-45 (statement of Del. Victor Rivers).
                                                                                                         



                          150                      Id . at 2045.
        



                          151                      Id.  at 2070-71 (statement of Del. Thomas Harris).
                                                                                                               



                                                                                                                                                               -40-                                                                                                                                                       7629
  


----------------------- Page 41-----------------------

secretary of state would run as provided by law for all other candidates, and if they ever                                                                                      



abolished the system of primary election and went back to the convention system, [the]                                                                                          

language would still be broad enough to make it flexible."                                                                   152  



                                                                                                                                                                                  

                             This history - revealing delegates' competing goals of compatibility and  



                                                                                                                                                                                

independent electoral legitimacy and their desire to adopt a flexible framework - does  



                                                                                                                                                                                    

not favor interpreting article III, section 8 to mean that the lieutenant governor must be  



                                                                                                                                                                         

nominated in the exact same manner as other elected officials.  Such a strict reading  



                                                                                                                                                                                 

would  mean  that  a  compromise  provision  governing  a  single  office  restricts  the  



                                                                                                                                                                                           

legislature's flexibility to design the elections process for all other elected state officials.  



                                                                                                                                                                      

Article III, section 8 requires the lieutenant governor to appear jointly with the governor  



                                                                                                                                                                                   

on  the  general  election  ballot.  Yet  the  Treadwell  amici's  strict  reading  allows  no  



                                                                                                                                                                                    

flexibility  to  accomplish  that  command.                                                    For  example,  prior  to  the  enactment  of  



                                                                                                                                                                                   

Initiative 2 Alaska law permitted candidates to reach the general election ballot by  

                                                                                                                                             153   To accommodate  

                                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                               

collecting a sufficient number of signatures from registered voters. 



the need to pair lieutenant governor and governor candidates for the general election, the  

                                                                                                                                                                                   



law required lieutenant governor and governor candidates to petition for signatures as  

                                                                                                                                                                                     

a joint ticket, while all other candidates petitioned solo.154  If Treadwell amici are correct  

                                                                                                                                                                           



that article III, section 8 requires the lieutenant governor to be nominated in exactly the  

                                                                                                                                                                                   



same manner as all other candidates, then this system (which was the law in Alaska for  

                                                                                                                                                                                   



              152            3 PACC 2140 (Jan. 14, 1956) (statement of Del. Ralph Rivers).                                                          



              153            Ch. 83, §§ 5.51-.56, SLA 1960.                          



              154            See  former AS15.25.180(a)(17) (2020) (repealed Feb.                                                              28, 2021) (requiring   



only gubernatorial candidates to list the name of their running mate on nominating  

                                                                                                                                                                

petition).  



                                                                                        -41-                                                                                  7629
  


----------------------- Page 42-----------------------

almost 60 years) cannot be used for any elective office.                                                                                                                                      We doubt that the delegates                                       



intended the tail to wag the dog in this way.                                                                                                       



                                            Furthermore,   the   Treadwell   amici's   interpretation   raises   constitutional  



concerns.   If the Treadwell amici are correct that the only permissible way under article                                                                                                                                                                                



III, section 8 to pair lieutenant governor and governor candidates for the general election                                                                                                                                                                          



is for these candidates to seek nomination solo through a party primary (or convention),                                                                                                                                                             



then political parties offer the only route to the general election.                                                                                                                                                 Yet the U.S. Supreme                        



Court has signaled that election laws cannot make political parties the sole gatekeepers                                                                                                                                                                

                                                         155         "[T]he primary values protected by the First Amendment . . . are  

of elected office.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

served when election campaigns are not monopolized by the existing political parties."156  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



The Treadwell amici's interpretation of article III, section 8, entails precisely this kind  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



of constitutionally suspect monopoly.  

                                                                                         



                                             Considering theconstitution's text, theconvention proceedings, legislative  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



practice,  and  the  constitutional  concerns  with  the  Treadwell  amici's  argument,  we  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



conclude that the Alaska Constitution does not require the nomination process for the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



lieutenant  governor  to  be  exactly  the  same  as  that  for  every  other  elected  official.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



Because Initiative 2 requires candidates for lieutenant governor to seek election through  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



a nonpartisan primary like all other state elected officials, it satisfies the constitutional  

                                                                                                    



command that candidates for lieutenant governor be nominated "in the manner provided  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



by law for nominating candidates for other elected offices."  

                                                                                                                                                                          



                      155                   SeeAndersonv.Celebrezze                                                                  ,460U.S.780,794,                                               805-06 (1983)(invalidating                       



law prescribing early filing deadline for independent presidential candidates because it                                                                                                                                                                                                  

"discriminate[d] against those candidates and - of particular importance - against                                                                                                                                                                                    

those voters whose political preferences lie outside the existing political parties").                                                                                                                                                                                            



                      156                   Id. at 794.  

                                                               



                                                                                                                                         -42-                                                                                                                                  7629
  


----------------------- Page 43-----------------------

                          C.	                      Initiative 2's Ranked-Choice Voting Provisions Do Not Violate The                                                                                                                                                                                                   

                                                   Alaska Constitution's Provision For Electing The Governor.                                                                                                                                                



                                                   Article III, section 3 of the Alaska Constitution provides:                                                                                                                                                                "The governor   



shall be chosen by the qualified voters of the State at a general election.                                                                                                                                                                                                     The candidate   



receiving the greatest number of votes shall be governor."                                                                                                                                                                  Kohlhaas and the Treadwell                                            



amici   argue   that   Initiative   2's   system   of   ranked-choice   voting   conflicts   with   this  



constitutional command because it requires a candidate for governor to obtain a majority                                                                                                                                                                                                             



of votes, not merely the greatest number of votes, to win the general election.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     This  



argument rests on two false premises: first, that Initiative 2 requires a winning candidate                                                                                                                                                                                                         



to receive a majority of votes; and second, that Initiative 2 entails multiple rounds of                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



voting akin to a series of runoff elections and therefore denies victory to the candidate                                                                                                                                                                                                          



who wins the greatest number of votes in the first round of voting.                                                                                                                                                              



                                                   1.	                      Initiative 2 does not require a candidate to receive a majority of                                                                                                                                                                                  

                                                                            votes in order to win the general election.                                                                                          



                                                   Kohlhaas's starting point is correct:                                                                                                       the constitution does not require a                                                                                                 



candidate for governor to receive a majority of votes in order to win the election. Instead                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



the candidate wins by receiving "the greatest number of votes" - meaning a candidate                                                                                                                                                                                                            

can win with a plurality of votes.                                                                                            157  

                                                                                                                                          



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                   The record of the constitutional proceedings confirms this straightforward  



                                                                                              158  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

interpretation of the text.                                                                                The delegates knew that most states used plurality systems  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

so that elections would have a winner even if no candidate  received  a majority of  



                          157                      See   Plurality,   BLACK 'S   LAW   DICTIONARY    (11th   ed.   2019)   (defining  



"plurality"   as   "[t]he   greatest   number   (esp.   of   votes),   regardless   of   whether   it  is  a  

majority, simple, or absolute").                                                                                         



                          158                      See Wielechowski v. State, 403 P.3d 1141, 1146 (Alaska 2017) (explaining  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

that we "look to the . . . purpose of the provision and the intent of the framers" in  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

interpreting the Alaska Constitution).  

                                                                                         



                                                                                                                                                             -43-	                                                                                                                                                    7629
  


----------------------- Page 44-----------------------

          159  

votes.          The initial proposal, nearly identical to the current version, provided:                                                   "The  



governor shall be elected by the qualified voters of this state.                                          The person receiving the              

                                                                                         160   During debate on the provision,  

greatest number of votes shall be the governor . . . ."                                                                             



Delegate George Sundborg suggested the second sentence was redundant and proposed  

                                                                                                                                      

its deletion.161          Delegate Katherine Nordale objected, explaining that "if you leave this  

                                                                                                                                               



to the legislature they could say that the candidate receiving a majority of the votes cast"  

                                                                                                                                             



is the winner, and "it is conceivable that there may be three tickets in the field for  

                                                                                                                                                

governor."162            Delegate Frank Barr agreed with Nordale, explaining that while some  

                                                                                                                                            



states require a majority and others require "the highest number of votes" to elect a  

                                                                                                                                                   



governor, "in case there are more than two candidates that complicates the question" and  

                                                                                                                                               

the language Sundborg proposed deleting "solves it right here."163   Sundborg's proposal  

                                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                     164   The delegates adopted a  

to remove the second sentence was defeated by voice vote.                                                                                          

                                                                                             



plurality requirement to avoid the experience of states with constitutions requiring a  

                                                                                                                                                   



candidate to receive a majority of votes cast, which often saw elections with no winner  

                                                                                                                                         



                                                                                        165  

when more than two candidates were on the ballot.                                             

                                                                              



            159        2 A    LASKA   STATEHOOD   COMM., C                         ONSTITUTIONAL   STUDIES, ch. IV, at 4                           



(1955).  



            160        Constitutional Convention Committee Proposal No. 10/a, § 3 (Jan. 12,  

                                                                                                                                               

 1956).  



            161        3 PACC 2065 (Jan. 13, 1956) (statement of Del. George Sundborg).  

                                                                                                                          



            162        Id . at 2065-66 (statement of Del. Katherine Nordale).  

                                                                                                   



            163        Id . at 2066 (statement of Del. Frank Barr).  

                                                                                      



            164        Id.  



            165        See id. at 2065-66.  For example, a congressional seat in Massachusetts  

                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                              (continued...)  



                                                                       -44-                                                                 7629
  


----------------------- Page 45-----------------------

                                       Where Kohlhaas and the Treadwell amici go wrong is in                                                                                                                              arguing that   



Initiative 2's system of ranked-choice voting                                                                                       requires  a candidate to receive a majority                                                     



of votes in order to win.                                                  It does not.                          It is entirely possible for a candidate to win an                                                                        



election by receiving less than a majority of total votes cast. For example, the Treadwell                                                                                                                                       



amici point to a recent congressional election in Maine conducted with ranked-choice                                                                                                                                 



voting.   They maintain that the candidate ultimately declared the victor was in second                                                                                                                                                   



place with 45% of the vote after the initial round of counting, but received 50.62% of                                                                                                                                                                   



votes counted in the final round against his opponent's 49.38%.                                                                                                                                   This is true, but the                              



winning candidate received only 49.2% of the total votes cast - winning with slightly                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                                                                                                                                          166  

less than a majority, but still the greatest number, of votes cast.                                                                                                                               



                                       To understand how a candidate can win without a majority of votes, it is  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



helpful to revisit how ranked-choice voting works.  Under Initiative 2, voters may rank  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

general election candidates in order of preference.167   The Division of Elections initially  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



tabulates each ballot as a vote for the highest-ranked candidate; if a candidate has more  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     168         If not, the  

than half of these votes, counting is complete and that candidate wins.                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                                                                                                                                     



candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and each ballot that had been counted for  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



the eliminated candidate is reassigned to the voter's second-choice candidate on the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



                    165                 (...continued)  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

remained vacant for an entire two-year term because is took 12 elections until one  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

candidate obtained a majority, and  in  Vermont it took  10  runoff elections to  fill a  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

congressional seat. See generally Richard H. Pildes & G. Michael Parsons, The Legality  

                                                                                              AL. L. R               EV. 1773, 1788-95 (2021) (detailing the history                                                                      

of Ranked-Choice Voting, 109 C 

of majority provisions).           



                    166                See Baber v. Dunlap, 376 F. Supp. 3d 125, 130-31 (D. Me. 2018).  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



                    167                See AS 15.15.350(c)-(e); AS 15.15.360(a)(1).  

                                                                                                                               



                    168                AS 15.15.350(d).  

                                                   



                                                                                                                          -45-                                                                                                                  7629
  


----------------------- Page 46-----------------------

            169  

ballot.          If the ballot does not rank a second-choice candidate, it is considered "inactive"                                        



                                                                                170  

and   is   not   counted   in   further   tabulations.                                                                                               

                                                                                        This  process  repeats  until  only  two  



                                                                                                                                                        171  

                                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                         

candidates remain, when the candidate "with the greatest number of votes is elected." 



                                                                                                                                            

                        The flaw in Kohlhaas and the Treadwell amici's argument is in assuming  



                                                                                                                                                           

that votes for losing candidates are always redirected to successful candidates, so that a  



                                                                                                                                                       

candidate must ultimately receive more than half the total votes cast in order to win. But  



                                                                                                       

they fail to appreciate the fact that voters do not have to select second- or third-choice  



                                                                                                                                  

candidates, and many may not.  When a voter's first-place candidate is eliminated and  



                                                                                                                                                

the voter has not ranked a second-place candidate, the ballot is not redirected to another  



                                                                                                                                         

candidate.  Because these votes do not go into the numerator (votes for a successful  



                                                                                                                                                       

candidate) but remain in the denominator (total votes cast), a successful candidate can  



                                                                                                                                            

win the election with less than half of the total votes cast even though the candidate  



                                                                                                                       

receives more than half of the votes counted in the final round of tabulation.  



                                                                                                                                              

                        A simple example shows how a candidate can prevail without a majority  



                                                                                                                                                               

of  votes.           Consider  an  election  with  four  candidates,  in  which  100  people  vote.  



                                                                                                                                                   

Candidates Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, and Delta receive 30, 25, 25, and 20 first-place votes,  



                                                                                                                                               

respectively. The last-place candidate, Delta, is eliminated.  The twenty ballots initially  



                                                                                                                                  

counted for Delta are reexamined.  Ten of these ballots did not rank a second-choice  

                                                                       172   The remaining ten did rank a second-choice  

                                                                                                                                   

candidate, so these ballots are inactive. 



candidate - five for Alpha, and five for Bravo - and are added to those candidates'  

                                                                                                                                        



totals, resulting in totals of 35, 30, and 25 for Alpha, Bravo, and Charlie respectively.  

                                                                                                                                                               



            169         Id.  



            170         AS 15.15.350(d)(2), (g)(2).            



            171         AS 15.15.350(d).   



            172         See  AS 15.15.350(g)(2).   



                                                                           -46-                                                                    7629
  


----------------------- Page 47-----------------------

                                                                                                                                  173  

Because Charlie is now in last place, Charlie is eliminated.                                                                             Ten of Charlie's ballots  



ranked Alpha next, ten ranked Bravo next, and five did not rank another candidate.                                                                                                               



When the votes are tabulated again, the final total is 45 for Alpha, 40 for Bravo, and 15                                                                                                 



ballots exhausted.                       Although Alpha has received a majority of the ballots that are                                                                          active  



(i.e.  counted) in the final round (45/85), Alpha has received only a plurality of the                                                                                              total  

                                               174     Therefore a candidate does not need to receive a majority of  

ballots cast (45/100).                                                                                                                                                                    



votes cast to win a ranked-choice election and can win by receiving merely "the greatest  

                                                                                                                                                                              



number of votes," consistent with the text of article III, section 2.  

                                                                                                                                                  



                             Finally, it is important to note that Initiative 2's system of ranked-choice  

                                                          



voting does not contravene the purpose behind article III, section 2: eliminating the risk  

                                                                                                                                                                                       



of an election with no winner.  Except in the rare instance of a tie, ranked-choice voting  

                                                                                                                                                                                 



will always produce a winning candidate because it does not require a candidate to  

                                                                                                                                                                                          



surpass a particular vote threshold.  

                                                                               



                              2.	           Initiative 2 does not deny victory to the candidate receiving the  

                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                            greatest number of votes.  

                                                                                                           



                             Kohlhaas and  the Treadwell amici make a second argument why they  

                                                                                                                                                                                     



believe ranked-choice voting violates article III, section 2.  They contend that because  

                                                                                                                                                 



the  candidate  who  receives  the  greatest  number  of  first-choice  votes  does  not  

                                                                                                                                                                                      



automatically win the election and may ultimately lose after second- and third-choice  

                                                                                                                                                                    



votes are tallied, ranked-choice voting unconstitutionally denies victory to the candidate  

                                                                                                                                                                          



who received "the greatest number of votes."  They maintain that ranked-choice voting  

                                                                                                                                                                                 



               173	          See  AS 15.15.350(d).   



               174           See Dudum v. Arntz                          , 640 F.3d 1098, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that                                                        



under ranked-choice voting "a plurality of the                                                      total  votes cast can prevail, as the majority                           

is only of the last stage of calculation, when many candidates have been mathematically  

                                                                                                                                                              

eliminated" (emphasis added)).                     



                                                                                           -47-	                                                                                    7629
  


----------------------- Page 48-----------------------

is akin to a series of runoff elections that the delegates implicitly rejected by providing                                                                                           



for election by a plurality of votes.                                               



                                The Treadwell amici rely heavily on an advisory opinion of the Maine                                                                                         



Supreme Judicial Court, which ruled that the system of ranked-choice voting adopted in                                                                                                                   

                                                                                                175       Maine's system worked similarly to that  

Maine violated that state's constitution.                                                                                                                                                           



adopted  in  Initiative 2, eliminating  the last-place finisher  and redistributing  ballots  

                                                                                                                                                                                            



initially counted for that candidate according to voters' preferences until a candidate  

                                                                                                                                                                                    

achieved an outright majority or all ballots were exhausted.176                                                                                            The Maine Supreme  

                                                                                                                                                                                       



Judicial Court noted that the Maine constitution's original requirement that a winner  

                                                                                                                                                                                          



receive a majority of votes was changed to a plurality requirement following a history  

                                                                                                        

of failed elections due to the lack of outright majority.177  Proceeding through the ranked- 

                                                                                                                                                                                           



choice  voting  algorithm,  the  court  reasoned,  meant  that  the  law  "prevent[ed]  the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                    



recognition of the winning candidate when the first plurality [wa]s identified" - after  

                                                                                  178  It explained that "[i]f, after one round of counting,  

the first-place votes were recorded.                                                                                                                                                   

                                                            



a candidate obtained a plurality of the votes but not a majority, that candidate would be  

                                                                                                                                                                                                        



declared the winner according to the Maine Constitution . . . . According to the [ranked- 

                                                                                                                                                                                         



choice  voting  law],  however,  that  same  candidate  would  not  then  be  declared  the  

                                                                                                                                                                              



                175             Opinion of the Justices                               , 162 A.3d 188, 211 (Maine 2017).
                                  



                176  

                                              

                               Id. at 204.
  



                177  

                                              

                               Id. at 209-11.
  



                178  

                                              

                               Id. at 211.
  



                                                                                                  -48-                                                                                           7629
  


----------------------- Page 49-----------------------

              179  

winner."           As a result, the court found the ranked-choice voting law violated Maine's                                

constitution.180  



                     But the Maine Supreme Judicial Court did not explain why its constitution  

                                                                                                                        

required the election to be called after "one round of counting."181  If the vote count is  



not final after the first round of tabulation, then the candidate in first place after the first  

                                                                                                                                    



round is not necessarily the candidate "receiving the greatest number of votes."  Instead  

                                                                                                                               



that candidate  is  simply the candidate in the lead before the votes have been fully  

                                                                                                                                  



counted.  

                



                     With ranked-choice voting, the vote count is not final after the first round  

                                                                                                                                 



of tabulation.  Maine's law provided that if there were more than two candidates left  

                                                                                                                                            



"the last-place candidate  [wa]s defeated and  a new round  [of tabulation] beg[an],"  

                                                                                                                           



repeating until two candidates remained and the candidate with the most votes was  

                                                                                                                                    

declared the winner.182                Similarly, Initiative 2 specifies that the tabulation "continues"  

                                                                                                                       



until two or fewer candidates remain and "the candidate with the greatest number of  

                                                                                                                                       

                                                                             183   According to both states' ranked- 

votes is elected and the tabulation is complete."                                                                             

                                                             

choice voting laws, the vote count is not complete until the final round of tabulation.184  

                                                                                                                                            



Yet the Maine Supreme Judicial Court treated the result obtained after the first round of  

                                                                                                                                       



counting as if it were final, without pointing to any text in its constitution that requires  

                                                                                                                              



           179       Id.  



           180       Id .  



           181       See  id.
  



           182       Former  ME.  STAT.  tit.  21-A,  §  723-A(2)  (2017)  (amended  Sept.  19,  2019).
  



           183       AS   15.15.350(d)(1).
  



           184       See  id.;  former  ME.  STAT.  tit.  21-A,  §  723-A(2)  (2017)  (amended  Sept.  19,
  



2019).  



                                                                  -49-                                                            7629
  


----------------------- Page 50-----------------------

                                                                                                                                                             185  

votes to be counted in that way or that limits the way a vote can be cast or expressed.                                                                             



                                                                                                                                                 

The court discussed at length the history of the Maine constitution's plurality provision  



                                                                                                                                                      

and the state's history of failed elections but did not explain how ranked-choice voting  

                                                                                                                                      186   The court's  

                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                         

is any more likely to result in a failed election than single-choice voting. 



failure to pinpoint constitutional text, structure, or policies inconsistent with ranked- 

                                                                                                                                                   



choice voting leaves us unconvinced by its analysis.  

                                                                                                   



                         A  more  persuasive  account  of  how  ranked-choice  voting  works  was  

                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                                                                                       187  

described  by  the Ninth  Circuit Court of Appeals in Dudum v. Arntz .                                                                         That  case  

                                                                                                                                               



concerned San Francisco's system of restricted instant-runoff voting ("restricted IRV"),  

                                                                                                                                                      

a  variant  of  ranked-choice  voting,  for  certain  municipal  offices.188                                                          Like  Alaska's  

                                                                                                                                                 

Initiative 2, San Francisco's law allowed voters to rank candidates by preference.189  The  

                                                                                                                                                           



Ninth Circuit rejected the notion that the tally after the first round of counting - i.e.,  

                                                                                                                                                           



after first-choice votes have been tallied and before second-choice votes are tallied -  

                                                                                                                                                             



                                                                      190  

was "final" or significant in any way.                                      

                                                              



                         The Ninth Circuit described as "off the mark" the challengers' argument  

                                                                                                                                                



(which was similar to the logic of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court) that each round of  

                                                                                                                                                              



             185         See Opinion of the Justices                        , 162 A.3d at 211.
         



             186  

                                            

                         See id. at 209-11.
  



             187  

                                                                       

                         640 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2011).
  



             188         Id.  at 1100-01.              The system was considered "restricted" because the law
                                             



                                                                                                                                                            

permitted limiting voters' rankings to three candidates if the voting equipment could not  

accommodate a greater number.                                 Id.  at 1101.   



             189         Id .  



             190         See id. at 1107.  

                                            



                                                                             -50-                                                                       7629
  


----------------------- Page 51-----------------------

vote  tabulation  is a separate round of                                                                  voting, so that the system is akin to a series of                                                           



runoff elections:   



                                     In   actuality,   all   voters  participating   in   a   restricted   IRV  

                                     election   are   afforded  a   single   and   equal   opportunity   to  

                                     express their preferences for three candidates; voters can use                                                                                              

                                     all three preferences, or fewer if they choose.                                                                              Most notably,   

                                     once the polls close and calculations begin, no new                                                                                         votes  are  

                                     cast.  To determine the winner of the election based on that                                                                                              

                                     single set of votes cast, restricted IRV uses an algorithm. The                                                                                           

                                     ballots, each representing three or fewer preferences, are the                                                                                              

                                     initial   inputs;  the   sequence   of   calculations   mandated   by  

                                     restricted IRV is used to arrive at a single output - one                                                                                                 

                                     winning candidate.                                  [191]  



The  court concluded  that "[t]he series of calculations required  by  the algorithm to  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



produce the winning candidate are simply steps of a single tabulation, not separate  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

rounds of voting."192  It contrasted San Francisco's system with a true runoff election:  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



one in which the top candidates from the first ballot advance to a second ballot,  which  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

"involves at least two rounds of voting, or  inputs."193                                                                                                      While a true runoff election  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



requires voters to head to the polls twice and cast two different ballots, ranked-choice  

                                                                                                                                                                                                       

voting, the court explained, "considers only one round of inputs, i.e., votes."194  

                                                                                                                                                                                                



                                     The Ninth Circuit's explanation that ranked-choice voting entails only a  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



single round of voting, tabulated with a series of calculations, is more persuasive than  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



the Maine Supreme Judicial Court's view that the system involves a series of separate  

                                                        



                   191              Id . (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted).                                                    



                   192              Id.   Dudum 's "single tabulation" language is somewhat different from the                                                                                                                        



language of Initiative 2,whichnotes that "tabulation proceeds in sequential rounds" until                                                                                                                                         

"thetabulation is complete." AS15.15.350(d). Functionally, thesesystems areidentical.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



                   193              Dudum, 640 F.3d at 1107 (emphasis in original).  

                                                                                                                                                  



                   194              Id.  



                                                                                                                  -51-                                                                                                          7629
  


----------------------- Page 52-----------------------

elections.   An election result is not "final" under ranked-choice voting while election                                                                                                                                                                           



officials   are   still   tallying   voters'   preferences;   they   must   be   tallied   completely  to  



determine which candidates have won, and the count is not complete until each vote has                                                                                                                                                                                             



been given full effect. Once the vote is                                                                                                    final, the candidate "receiving the greatest                                                                          



number of votes" is elected governor. Therefore, the fact that the candidate who receives                                                                                                                                                                          



the most first-place votes may not ultimately win the election does not violate the Alaska                                                                                                                                                                             



Constitution.   



                                            And   there   is   no   question   that   a   ranked-choice   vote   is  a   single   vote.   



Rankings reflect alternative votes, not multiple votes.                                                                                                                          A vote may start with Candidate                                            



Alpha, then be redirected to Candidate Bravo, and then be redirected again to Candidate                                                                                                                                                                     



Charlie, but in the end a person's vote will be tallied for no more than one candidate.                                                                                                                                                                                                   



                                            Nothing in the Alaska Constitution prohibits voting                                                                                                                                  in  this way.                                The  



constitution does not define or limit the term "vote."                                                                                                                       Black's Law Dictionary defines a                                                                             



vote as "[t]he expression of one's preference or opinion in a meeting or election by                                                                                                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                                                                                         195         A ranked-choice vote is an  

ballot, show of hands, or other type of communication."                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



expression of preference that contains more information than a single-choice vote:  I  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



prefer Candidate Alpha best, but if Candidate Alpha cannot win, then I prefer Candidate  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



Bravo to Candidate Charlie.  Because a ranked-choice vote contains more information  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



than a single-choice vote,  it  requires a more elaborate calculation to determine the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



winner.  But it is still a single vote, cast by a single voter, that in the end is counted for  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



a single candidate.  

                                                               



                                            The delegates to the constitutional convention acknowledged that future  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



legislatures may change how Alaska holds elections and left it to the legislature to  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



                      195                    Vote,  BLACK 'S  LAW  DICTIONARY  (11th  ed.  2019).  



                                                                                                                                        -52-                                                                                                                                              7629  


----------------------- Page 53-----------------------

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          196  

"prescribe[]   by   law"   the   "[m]ethods   of   voting"   to   be   used.                                                                                                                                                                                          They   expressly  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  197  

contemplated the abolition of partisan primaries and left that choice to the legislature.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



Although the delegates did not appear to contemplate ranked-choice voting, they clearly  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



believed that the legislature and, by extension, the people, would have broad power to  

                                                                                                                                          



change the way Alaska's public officials are elected.  The few guardrails they included  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



                          196                      Alaska Const. art. V, § 3 ("Methods of voting, including absentee voting,                                                                                                                                                                                   



 shall be prescribed by law.                                                                               Secrecy of voting shall be preserved.                                                                                                                 The procedure for                                            

determining election contests, with right of appeal to the courts, shall be prescribed by                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

law.").   The Treadwell amici cite a 1961 opinion by Attorney General Ralph Moody for                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

the idea that the legislature - and by extension voters via the initiative process - is not                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

constitutionally permitted to undertake fundamental changes to election laws. 1961                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

FORMAL  OP. A                                             TT'Y  GEN. 20.                                          Moody was asked whether the legislature could require                                                                                                                                       

candidates in election districts with two or more representatives to seek election to a                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

designated seat.                                                 Id.  at 10.   Moody drew a distinction between a "method of voting,"                                                                                                                                                                     

which "concerns the mechanical way in which the voter exercises his choice[, such as]                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

paper ballots, voting machines, polling places, and the like," and a "method of election,"                                                                                                                                                                                                            

which "has to do with the manner of choosing officials."                                                                                                                                                                   Id.  at 12.  The primary basis   

for   this   distinction  was   a   textual   contrast   with   a   Florida   constitutional   provision  

addressing "method[s] of election."                                                                                                         Id.   at 11-12.                                         Moody concluded that legislation                                                             

requiring candidates to seek election to a designated seat within a district went "beyond                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

 'methods of voting' in the sense that term appears to be used" in the Alaska Constitution,                                                                                                                                                                                              

 so the legislature had no power to enact the law.                                                                                                                                         Id. at 12-13.   Moody did not analyze                                                                             

the   Alaska   constitutional   convention   proceedings,   acknowledge   that   the   delegates  

contemplated future legislatures eliminating party primaries, or address the legislature's                                                                                                                                                                                                 

creation of a petition system, which was more like a method of election than a method                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

of voting under his definition. The Attorney General's opinion does not persuade us that                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

the delegates, in expressly providing for the legislature to prescribe methods of voting,                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

intended to preclude the legislature from making changes to the system of elections.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



                          197                      See  3 PACC 2044-45 (Jan. 13, 1956) (statement of Del. Victor Rivers  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

(noting that "[t]here might not always be a primary" and referencing possibility of  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

returning to nominating conventions); 3 PACC 2140 (Jan. 14, 1956) (statement of Del.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

RalphRivers) (acknowledging possibility that thelegislaturecould"abolish[]thesystem  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

of primary election and [go] back to the convention system").  

                                                                                                                                                                                                       



                                                                                                                                                              -53-                                                                                                                                                      7629
  


----------------------- Page 54-----------------------

in the constitution do not preclude adopting a way of tabulating votes that allows voters                                                                                                                                                   



to provide more input about their preferences.                                                     



                    D.	                Initiative                          2's             System                        Of             Ranked-Choice                                           Voting                      Does                  Not  

                                       Unconstitutionally Burden The Right To Vote.                                                                                      



                                       Finally, Kohlhaas argues that Initiative 2 "imposes an unconstitutional                                                                                                



burden on the voter's right to make a knowledgeable choice between candidates."  He   



asserts that with ranked-choice voting "the voter votes for his or her favorite choice, but                                                                                                                                                          



for the second and later rounds the voter is voting blind."                                                                                                                   Kohlhaas takes issue with                                         



voters' inability to change their preferences in between rounds of tabulation.                                                                                                                                                  Although  



he does not explicitly say so, Kohlhaas essentially argues that Initiative 2 burdens the                                                                                                                                                             

fundamental right to vote.                                                   198  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

                                       We  have  already  noted  that  election  laws,  including  rules  for  voter  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

registration and the time, place, and manner of voting, "will invariably impose some  



                                                                                                199  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

burden upon individual voters."                                                                            So long as the burden is modest, important State  



                                                                                                                                                                                                       

regulatory interests are typically sufficient to uphold a reasonable, nondiscriminatory  



                                                     200  

                                         

 state election law. 



                                       The burden  of  ranked-choice voting  on  the individual right to  vote is  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



minimal, and not appreciably greater than the burden imposed by single-choice voting.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



Kohlhaas's complaint about the difficulty of casting a vote without knowing how others  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



will vote is not unique to ranked-choice voting.  Voters face the same basic problem in  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



a single-choice voting system whenever there are more than two candidates.  In that  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



                    198                See Miller v. Treadwell                                              , 245 P.3d 867, 868-69 (Alaska 2010) (describing                                                                 



fundamental right to vote).                                   



                    199                 O'Callaghan v. State, 914 P.2d 1250, 1253-54 (Alaska 1996) (quoting  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 433-34 (1992)).  

                                                                                                                             



                    200	               Id.  



                                                                                                                         -54-	                                                                                                                 7629
  


----------------------- Page 55-----------------------

scenario voters often face a choice between voting for the candidate they prefer most or                                                                                                                                                               



voting against the candidate they dislike most.                                                                                          Ranked-choice voting allows a voter to                                                                                



account somewhat for the uncertainty of others' behavior by permitting a choice of                                                                                                                                                                     



second- and third-place candidates.                                                                       



                                       Kohlhaas   also   argues   that   a   voter   whose   ballot   is   "exhausted"   during  



tabulation "has no input into the final decision . . . as if the voter did not participate in the                                                                                                                                                    



election at all." But the same could be said of voters who support a third-party candidate                                                                                                                                        



under single-choice voting:                                                       a voter who votes for Candidate Charlie when the top two                                                                                                         



candidates are Candidates Alpha and Bravo is in essentially the same position. And with                                                                                                                                                          



ranked-choice voting, a voter's ballot will be exhausted only if the voter has elected not                                                                                                                                                           



to rank more than one candidate. Moreover, it is not accurate to say that such a voter has                                                                                                                                                          



had no input in the outcome of the election.                                                                                      " '[E]xhausted' ballots                                              are  counted in the                           



election[;] they are simply counted as votes for losing candidates, just as if a voter had                                                                                                                                                         

selected a losing candidate in a plurality or runoff election."                                                                                                                 201  



                                       The minimal burden imposed by ranked-choice voting is justified so long  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



as it advances important regulatory interests.  The following interests were advanced in  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



support of Initiative 2's proposal for ranked-choice voting:  

                                                                                                                                                        



                                       A  ranked-choice  voting  system  will  help  ensure  that  the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                       values of elected officials more broadly reflect the values of  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

                                       the electorate, mitigate the likelihood that a candidate who is  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

                                       disapproved  by  a  majority  of  voters  will  get  elected,  

                                                                                                                                                                                             

                                       encourage candidates to appeal to a broader section of the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                             

                                       electorate, allowAlaskans to votefor thecandidates that most  

                                                                                                                                                                                                         

                                       accurately reflect their values without risking the election of  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

                                       those  candidates  that  least  accurately  reflect  their  values,  

                                                                                                                                                                                

                                       encourage greater third-party and independent participation  

                                                                                                                                           



                    201                Dudum   v.   Arntz ,   640   F.3d   1098,   1110   (9th   Cir.   2011)   (emphasis   in  



original).  



                                                                                                                         -55-                                                                                                                  7629  


----------------------- Page 56-----------------------

                    in   elections,   and   provide a stronger                mandate for          winning  

                    candidates.[202]  



The State's interests in allowing voters to express more nuanced preferences through  

                                                                                                                        



their  votes  and  to  elect  candidates  with  strong  plurality  support  are  important  and  

                                                                                                                              

legitimate regulatory interests,203  and Kohlhaas has presented neither evidence nor a  

                                                                                                                           



persuasive explanation to disprove the link between  these goals and ranked-choice  

                                                                                                              



voting.  Kohlhaas therefore failed to meet his burden of proving that the law lacks a  

                                                                                                                                  



plainly legitimate sweep.  

                             



                    Our conclusion finds support in the opinions of other courts.  The Ninth  

                                                                                                                           



Circuit in Dudum  described the asserted burdens of San Francisco's ranked-choice  

                                                                                                              

voting system as "largely ephemeral, disappearing upon examination."204                                         Accordingly  

                                                                                                                 



the  court  ruled  that  the  system  was  justified  by  the  city's  "legitimate  interests  in  

                                                                                                                                



providing voters an opportunity to express nuanced voting preferences and electing  

                                                                                                                       

candidates with strong plurality support."205                        The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld a  

                                                                                                                                  



city's systemof ranked-choice voting, reasoning that challengers "failed to establish that  

                                                                                                                              

                                                                                            206   Even if ranked-choice  

[ranked-choice voting] on its face burdens the right to vote." 

                                                                                                              



voting "could be construed as a burden," the court reasoned, the burden was so slight as  

                                                                                                                                 



to be justified by the mere possibility that ranked-choice voting would advance the goals  

                                                                                                                            



          202       Alaska  Ballot  Initiative  2,  §  1(5)  (2020)  (statement  of  findings  and  intent).
  



          203       Dudum,  640  F.3d  at   1116.
   



          204       Id.  at   1113.
    



          205       Id.  at   1116.
   



          206       Minn.   Voters  All.   v. City   of  Minneapolis,   766  N.W.2d   683,   697   (Minn.
  



2009).  



                                                              -56-                                                         7629
  


----------------------- Page 57-----------------------

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      207  

of greater turnout, less divisive campaigns, and greater minority representation.                                                                                                                                                                                              And  



the federal district court in Maine rejected a claim that an election under ranked-choice                                                                                                                                                       



voting unconstitutionally burdened the right to vote, stating tartly that "a search for what                                                                                                                                                                                   



                                                                                                                                                                        208  

exactly the burden is . . . is not a fruitful exercise."                                                                                                                          



                                            Kohlhaasfailstoshowthatranked-choicevotingunconstitutionally burdens  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



the right to vote.  

                                                         



V.                    CONCLUSION  



                                            We AFFIRM the superior court's grant of summary judgment.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



                      207                   Id.   ("Reducing   the costs and                                                                      inconvenience to                                             voters,   candidates,   and  



taxpayers   by   holding   only   one   election,   increasing   voter   turnout,   encouraging   less  

divisive   campaigns,   and   fostering  greater   minority   representation   in   multiple-seat  

elections are all legitimate interests for the City to foster.                                                                                                                                 Whether and to what degree                                                

implementation of [ranked-choice voting] will achieve those benefits remains to be seen.                                                                                                                                                                                                          

But  it  is  plausible   that   [ranked-choice   voting]   may   advance   one   or   more   of   these  

interests. In the context of this facial challenge, that possibility is sufficient to justify any                                                                                                                                                                                  

minimal burden imposed by [ranked-choice voting]." (footnote omitted)).                                                                                                                                             



                      208                   Baber v. Dunlap, 376 F. Supp. 3d 125, 145 (D. Me. 2018).  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



                                                                                                                                         -57-                                                                                                                                  7629
  

Case Law
Statutes, Regs & Rules
Constitutions
Miscellaneous


IT Advice, Support, Data Recovery & Computer Forensics.
(907) 338-8188

Please help us support these and other worthy organizations:
Law Project for Psychiatraic Rights
Soteria-alaska
Choices
AWAIC