| Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions |
|
|
|
| Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions |
|
|
|
|
You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices. La Quen Naay Elizabeth Medicine Crow, Amber Lee, and Kevin Mcgee v. Director Carol Beecher, in her Official Capacity, Lt. Governor Nancy Dahlstrom, in her Official Capacity (6/27/2025) sp-7775
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
LA QUEN NÃAY ELIZABETH )
MEDICINE CROW, AMBER LEE, and ) Supreme Court No. S-19182
KEVIN MCGEE, )
) Superior Court No. 3AN-24-05615 CI
Appellants, )
) O P I N I O N
v. )
) No. 7775 - June 27, 2025
CAROL BEECHER, in an official )
capacity as DIRECTOR, ALASKA )
DIVISION OF ELECTIONS; NANCY )
DAHLSTROM, in an official capacity as )
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR; and the )
STATE OF ALASKA, DIVISION OF )
ELECTIONS, )
)
Appellees, )
)
and )
)
DR. ARTHUR MATHIAS, PHILLIP )
IZON, and JAMIE R. DONLEY, )
)
Intervenors- )
Appellees. )
)
Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third
Judicial District, Anchorage, Christina A. Rankin, Judge.
Appearances: Scott M. Kendall, Jahna M. Lindemuth,
Samuel G. Gottstein, and C. Maeve Kendall, Cashion
Gilmore & Lindemuth, Anchorage, for Appellants.
----------------------- Page 2-----------------------
Kimberly D. Rodgers and Thomas S. Flynn, Assistant
Attorneys General, Anchorage, Lael A. Harrison, Assistant
Attorney General, Juneau, and Treg Taylor, Attorney
General, Juneau, for Appellees. Kevin G. Clarkson, Law
Offices of Kevin G. Clarkson, LLC, Anchorage, for
Intervenors-Appellees.
Before: Maassen, Chief Justice, and Carney, Borghesan,
Henderson, and Pate, Justices.
MAASSEN, Chief Justice.
INTRODUCTION
Three Alaska residents brought suit to challenge the process used by the
Division of Elections to certify a ballot initiative intended for the November 2024
general election ballot. One of their allegations was that the Division violated its own
regulations and the governing statutes by allowing corrections to circulators'
certifications of the petition booklets used to gather supporting signatures. The superior
court granted summary judgment on that issue to the Division and the petition's
sponsors, who had intervened in the case. Following trial on the remaining issues, the
court ordered the Division to reject some signatures and booklets, though enough
remained to keep the initiative on the ballot.
If the Division's certification correction policy had been held unlawful,
however, the number of valid signatures would have been less than what was needed
for the initiative to qualify for the ballot. The challengers therefore appeal the superior
court's summary judgment on that issue.
Concluding that the superior court's decision correctly interpreted the
governing statutes and regulations, we affirmed its judgment after oral argument. This
opinion explains our reasoning.
-2- 7775
----------------------- Page 3-----------------------
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
1
A. Facts
Phillip Izon, Jamie R. Donley, and Dr. Arthur Mathias (collectively the
sponsors) filed an application for a citizen ballot initiative in November 2022. The
initiative sought to end the system of open primaries and ranked-choice voting that had
been adopted by initiative in 2020. The Division of Elections certified the sponsors'
application on January 20, 2023, identifying the initiative as 22AKHE.
On February 8 the Division issued petition booklets to the sponsors,
starting the statutory one-year period for gathering signatures in support; the signature-
gathering deadline was thus February 7, 2024.2 The sponsors attended a training
session that covered the legal and regulatory requirements for gathering signatures and
submitting petitions. The parties agree that there were nonetheless some improprieties
during the signature-gathering process, such as leaving petition booklets unattended at
two locations.
On January 12, 2024, the sponsors submitted 655 petition booklets to the
Division. After an initial review for facial sufficiency, the Division accepted 641 of
them. By statute, the Division then had 60 days to complete its review and determine
3
whether the initiative qualified for the ballot.
1 The parties stipulated to relevant facts and expedited litigation deadlines
early in the case.
2 AS 15.45.140(a) ("The sponsors must file the initiative petition within one
year from the time the sponsors received notice from the lieutenant governor that the
petitions were ready for delivery to them.").
3 See AS 15.45.150 ("Within not more than 60 days of the date the petition
was filed, the lieutenant governor shall review the petition and shall notify the initiative
committee whether the petition was properly or improperly filed, and at which election
the proposition shall be placed on the ballot.").
-3- 7775
----------------------- Page 4-----------------------
Another aspect of the relevant time frame is tied to the legislative session:
if an initiative is approved for the ballot, it must be placed on the ballot for "the first
statewide general, special, special primary, or primary election that is held after (1) the
petition has been filed; (2) a legislative session has convened and adjourned; and (3) a
period of 120 days has expired since the adjournment of the legislative session."4 The
Thirty-Third Alaska Legislature convened for its Second Regular Session on January
16, four days after the sponsors filed their petition; this meant that if the initiative was
approved it could appear on the November general election ballot.
During its review process, the Division found more errors and returned 64
booklets to the sponsors for corrections. Sixty of those booklets had been certified by
a notary whose commission had expired; three of them had missing or incorrect
notarization dates; and one failed to identify the certifier's location. The sponsors
corrected and resubmitted 62 of the returned booklets between February 12 and March
1. On March 8, four days before the end of the 60-day review period, the Division
finished counting the booklets - including the ones that had been corrected and
resubmitted - and determined that the requirements for 22AKHE to appear on the
November ballot had been satisfied.
B. Proceedings
In April 2024 Alaska residents La Quen Náay Elizabeth Medicine Crow,
Amber Lee, and Kevin McGee (collectively Medicine Crow) filed a complaint5 against
the Lieutenant Governor, the Division of Elections, and the Division's director
4 AS 15.45.190.
5 The complaint was filed pursuant to AS 15.45.240, which provides: "Any
person aggrieved by a determination made by the lieutenant governor under
AS 15.45.010-15.45.220 may bring an action in the superior court to have the
determination reviewed within 30 days of the date on which notice of the determination
was given."
-4- 7775
----------------------- Page 5-----------------------
(collectively the Division), challenging the Division's determination that 22AKHE was
6 7
properly filed under article XI, section 3 of the Alaska Constitution and AS 15.45.160.
The superior court permitted the initiative's sponsors to intervene. All parties agreed
that claims about the Division's compliance with certification statutes and regulations
would be resolved on cross-motions for summary judgment, with any remaining claims
to be decided at a bench trial.
1. Summary judgment
Medicine Crow argued in her motion for summary judgment that the
Division's decision to approve 22AKHE for the ballot "violated the applicable statutes
and regulations." She argued that the statutory scheme governing initiatives does not
allow sponsors to cure defective booklets after the Division has begun its review, and
that even if the Division could allow a "piecemeal cure process," the process it used
here resulted in the sponsors missing the statutory deadlines. In opposition the Division
argued that the relevant statute authorizes sponsor corrections to certifications during
the review process, that the Division's reading of the statute is consistent with its own
regulations and the legislature's intent, that sponsors may correct certifications within
the 60-day review period even after the one-year deadline and the beginning of the
6 "After certification of the application, a petition containing a summary of
the subject matter shall be prepared by the lieutenant governor for circulation by the
sponsors. If signed by qualified voters who are equal in number to at least ten percent
of those who voted in the preceding general election, who are resident in at least three-
fourths of the house districts of the State, and who, in each of those house districts, are
equal in number to at least seven percent of those who voted in the preceding general
election in the house district, it may be filed with the lieutenant governor." Alaska
Const. art XI, § 3.
7 "The lieutenant governor shall notify the committee that the petition was
improperly filed upon determining that (1) there is an insufficient number of qualified
subscribers; (2) the subscribers were not resident in at least three-fourths of the house
districts of the state; or (3) there is an insufficient number of qualified subscribers from
each of the house districts described in (2) of this section." AS 15.45.160.
-5- 7775
----------------------- Page 6-----------------------
legislative session, and that allowing corrections furthers the will of the voters, thus
aligning with the constitutional right to enact laws by initiative. The sponsors'
summary judgment briefing made similar arguments.
The superior court ruled on these motions in early June. It denied
Medicine Crow's motion for summary judgment and granted the Division's.8 The court
decided that AS 15.45.130 allows the Division to return booklets to sponsors for
correction after the petition is filed as long as the Division has not yet completed its
signature-counting process. It reasoned that the regulation requiring a petition to be
filed as a "single instrument" 9 does not prohibit later correction or re-filing of
individual booklets, and another regulation requiring the Division to return petitions
with a "patent defect"10 only applies when the defect is discoverable at the time of
submission, during the initial facial review, which was not the case here. The court
concluded that the Division did not violate the governing statutes; that the legislative
history indicates an intent to prevent sponsors from gathering additional signatures after
timely filing their petition, not correcting certification affidavits already submitted; and
that the legislature's overall intent was "to remove barriers in the petition process, and
thus make it easier for circulators to certify their booklets by allowing corrections to
certification affidavits, even after filing." (Emphasis in original.)
According to the superior court, its decision was consistent with "a
'constitutional principle[]' of 'interpret[ing] legislative procedures in favor of the
8 The sponsors had crossed-moved for summary judgment on all issues; the
court decided only the issues that were also raised by the Division.
9 6 AAC 25.240(c).
10 6 AAC 25.240(f).
-6- 7775
----------------------- Page 7-----------------------
exercise of the initiative power.' "11 It explained that errors in certification, such as
with a notary commission, should not necessarily mean that the signatures in those
booklets are not counted, thus disenfranchising those voters. The court's conclusion,
in sum, was that the governing law allowed corrections to certifications to be made after
the timely submission of a petition as long as they came within the Division's 60-day
review period.
2. Bench trial
Trial on the remaining claims was held over five days in late June and
early July. These claims were more fact-dependent than the statutory interpretation
questions: they alleged that the circulators had collected some signatures unlawfully
and the Division violated the law by counting them. Medicine Crow asked the court to
invalidate those signatures and order the rejection of both booklets that had been
unlawfully circulated and booklets from circulators who were found to have perjured
themselves.
The superior court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law on July
19. It concluded that some petition booklets had to be disqualified because of "instances
of non-compliant signature gathering," and it ordered the Division to remove all
improperly counted signatures and decide whether there were still enough to support
the petition. The Division did so, notifying the court on July 23 "that the 22AKHE
petition has sufficient signatures statewide and in 33 of 40 house districts." The court
entered final judgment the next day against Medicine Crow and ruled that the initiative
would remain on the November ballot.
Medicine Crow immediately appealed, focusing on the summary
judgment ruling . We granted an emergency request to expedite the appeal because of
11 N. W. Cruiseship Ass'n of Alaska, Inc. v. State, Off. of Lieutenant
Governor, Div. of Elections, 145 P.3d 573, 582, 586 (Alaska 2006) (alterations by
superior court).
-7- 7775
----------------------- Page 8-----------------------
the Division's September 3 deadline for printing the general election ballots. On
August 22, following oral argument, we issued a summary order affirming the superior
court's grant of summary judgment; this opinion explains our reasoning.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying our
independent judgment and "adopting the rule of law most persuasive in light of
precedent, reason, and policy." 12 "We review an agency interpretation of statutory
terms using one of two standards: reasonable basis or independent judgment."13 If "the
agency's specialized knowledge and experience are not particularly relevant to the issue
at hand" 14 and "the issue is one of 'statutory interpretation requiring the application
and analysis of various canons of statutory construction,' "15 we review using our
independent judgment. In doing so we "interpret[] the statute according to reason,
practicality, and common sense, considering the meaning of the statute's language, its
16
legislative history, and its purpose."
DISCUSSION
The Alaska Constitution provides that "[t]he people may propose and
enact laws by the initiative."17 How the people are to go about exercising that power is
12 Societe Fin., LLC v. MJ Corp., 542 P.3d 1159, 1165 (Alaska 2024)
(quoting Kimp v. Fire Lake Plaza II, LLC, 484 P.3d 80, 86 (Alaska 2021)).
13 Guerin v. State, Off. of Lieutenant Governor, Div. of Elections, 537 P.3d
770, 777 (Alaska 2023) (quoting PLC, LLC v. State, Dep't of Nat. Res., 484 P.3d 572,
577 (Alaska 2021)).
14 Id. (quoting PLC, LLC, 484 P.3d at 577).
15 Mun. of Anchorage v. Adamson, 301 P.3d 569, 573 (Alaska 2013)
(quoting Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Co. v. Kenai Pipe Line Co., 746 P.2d 896, 903-04
(Alaska 1987)).
16 Aiken v. Alaska Addiction Pros. Ass'n., 552 P.3d 454, 463 (Alaska 2024)
(quoting Johnson v. State, Dep't of Corr. , 380 P.3d 653, 655 (Alaska 2016)).
17
Alaska Const. art. XI, § 1.
-8- 7775
----------------------- Page 9-----------------------
left largely to statute and regulation. At issue in this appeal is the language of the
statutes and regulations detailing the process that allowed 22AKHE to reach the
November 2024 general election ballot.
A. Alaska Statute 15.45.130 Allows Sponsors To Correct Circulators'
Certifications After The Statutory Petition-Filing Deadlines.
The legislature, by statute, has prescribed the process for the filing and
review of an initiative petition.18 The law provides that after the collection of signatures
and before the petition is filed, "each petition shall be certified by an affidavit by the
person who personally circulated the petition," and it further provides that "the
lieutenant governor may not count subscriptions on petitions not properly certified at
the time of filing or corrected before the subscriptions are counted."19 "The sponsors
must file the initiative petition within one year from the time the sponsors received
20
notice from the lieutenant governor that the petitions were ready for delivery to them."
Then, "[w]ithin not more than 60 days of the date the petition was filed, the lieutenant
governor shall review the petition and shall notify the initiative committee whether the
18 AS 15.45.090-.160.
19
AS 15.45.130. The affidavit must state "(1) that the person signing the
affidavit meets the residency, age, and citizenship qualifications for circulating a
petition under AS 15.45.105; (2) that the person is the only circulator of that petition;
(3) that the signatures were made in the circulator's actual presence; (4) that, to the best
of the circulator's knowledge, the signatures are the signatures of the persons whose
names they purport to be; (5) that, to the best of the circulator 's knowledge, the
signatures are of persons who were qualified voters on the date of signature . . . ; (7)
that the circulator has not violated AS 15.45.110(d) with respect to that petition; and (8)
whether the circulator has received payment or agreed to receive payment for the
collection of signatures on the petition, and, if so, the name of each person or
organization that has paid or agreed to pay the circulator for collection of signatures on
the petition." Item six addresses a requirement that has been held unconstitutional and
as such is not enforced. See Res. Dev. Council for Alaska, Inc. v. Vote Yes for Alaska's
Fair Share, 494 P.3d 541, 553-54 (Alaska 2021)).
20 AS 15.45.140(a).
-9- 7775
----------------------- Page 10-----------------------
petition was properly or improperly filed, and at which election the proposition shall be
placed on the ballot."21 A petition is not properly filed if "(1) there is an insufficient
number of qualified subscribers; (2) the subscribers were not resident in at least three-
fourths of the house districts of the state; or (3) there is an insufficient number of
22
qualified subscribers from each of the house districts described in (2) of this section."
If a petition is properly filed, the lieutenant governor is required to place the initiative
on the ballot for the first statewide election that is held after a legislative session has
23
convened and adjourned and 120 days have passed since the adjournment.
Medicine Crow argues that the superior court erred by allowing
certifications to be corrected after the filing deadlines. She raises essentially two
questions of statutory interpretation: (1) do the statutory filing deadlines allow post-
filing corrections to the circulators' certifications, and (2) if so, are those corrections
limited to "technical" corrections, as opposed to (as happened here) the replacement of
deficient certifications with proper ones? Both questions require us to interpret
24
AS 15.45.130, the statute governing corrections to petition certifications.
1. The plain text of section .130 allows sponsors to correct
circulators' certifications after the filing deadlines.
Medicine Crow's argument involves two petition-filing deadlines:
AS 15.45.140, tied to when the petition booklets are initially distributed to the
21 AS 15.45.150.
22
AS 15.45.160.
23 AS 15.45.190.
24 AS 15.45.130 ("[T]he lieutenant governor may not count subscriptions on
petitions not properly certified at the time of filing or corrected before the subscriptions
are counted.").
-10- 7775
----------------------- Page 11-----------------------
sponsors,25 and AS 15.45.190, tied to the legislative session.26 The parties agree on all
relevant dates. The sponsors timely filed the petition on January 12, 2024, and the
Division's 60-day review period under AS 15.45.150 for determining the petition's
sufficiency thus ended on March 12. Between January 23 and February 21, the sponsors
retrieved 64 booklets after the Division notified them of certification errors, and they
returned 62 corrected booklets to the Division between February 12 and March 1; this
was after both the one-year signature-gathering period (found in section . 140) and the
start of the legislative session (relevant to section .190) but before the end of the 60-day
review period. Because none of these dates is disputed, the question for our review is
purely legal: whether the Division was correct to count the signatures in the 62 booklets
that were rejected, corrected, and then returned to the Division before the end of the
counting process.
Medicine Crow argues that "[t]he plain language of the Division's
regulation makes it crystal clear that a defective initiative petition cannot be cured after
the one-year deadline under any circumstances" and that to hold otherwise disrupts the
"regulatory whole" of the statutory scheme governing the initiative process. She
concedes that section .130 allows petitions to be corrected after submission, so long as
those corrections occur "before the subscriptions are counted." But she reads that
qualifying phrase as meaning that corrections must be submitted before the Division
begins counting any signatures during its review process - not once the review process
is underway.
25 See AS 15.45.140(a) ("The sponsors must file the initiative petition within
one year from the time the sponsors received notice from the lieutenant governor that
the petitions were ready for delivery to them.").
26 See AS 15.45.190 ("The lieutenant governor shall direct the director to
place the [initiative] on the election ballot of the first statewide . . . election that is held
after . . . a legislative session has convened and adjourned.").
-11- 7775
----------------------- Page 12-----------------------
We use a "sliding-scale approach" to interpret statutory language: "[T]he
plainer the statutory language is, the more convincing the evidence of contrary
legislative purpose or intent must be" to justify a different interpretation.27 We construe
statutory terms in accordance with their common usage, unless a term has "acquired a
peculiar meaning, by virtue of statutory definition or judicial construction."28 When
interpreting statutes, we presume "that the legislature intended every word, sentence, or
provision of a statute to have some purpose, force, and effect, and that no words or
provisions are superfluous."29 "It is a canon of statutory construction that the reading
of the statute should not render any of its sections meaningless."30 Finally, we interpret
statutes "in context with other pertinent provisions rather than in isolation, and with a
31
view toward reconciling conflict and producing a harmonious whole."
Alaska Statute 15.45.130 reads in relevant part: "In determining the
sufficiency of the petition, the lieutenant governor may not count subscriptions on
petitions not properly certified at the time of filing or corrected before the subscriptions
are counted." The statute addresses requirements for certifications of signature booklets
generally. But the sentence at issue, by beginning with "[i]n determining the sufficiency
27 Guerin v. State, Off. of Lieutenant Governor, Div. of Elections, 537 P.3d
770, 778 (Alaska 2023) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Planned Parenthood of
the Great Nw., 436 P.3d 984, 992 (Alaska 2019)).
28 City of Valdez v. State, 372 P.3d 240, 251 (Alaska 2016) (quoting Mun. of
Anchorage v. Suzuki, 41 P.3d 147, 150 (Alaska 2002)).
29 Vazquez v. State, Off. of Lieutenant Governor, Div. of Elections, 544 P.3d
1178, 1187 (Alaska 2024) (quoting McDonnell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 299
P.3d 715, 721 (Alaska 2013)).
30 Suzuki, 41 P.3d at 151.
31 Blythe P. v. State, Dep 't. of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.'s Servs.,
524 P.3d 238, 246 (Alaska 2023) (quoting Good v. Mun. of Anchorage, 450 P.3d 693,
698 (Alaska App. 2019)).
-12- 7775
----------------------- Page 13-----------------------
of the petition," anchors this particular aspect of the law to the Division's 60-day review
32
period, when the lieutenant governor is reviewing the petition for its sufficiency.
We apply common rules of grammar when interpreting statutes; thus we
read "or" as disjunctive, marking an alternative.33 The lieutenant governor may not
count signature booklets that are not properly certified when initially filed with the
Division or are not corrected "before the subscriptions are counted." The alternative
phrasing means that the submission of improperly certified signature booklets "at the
time of filing" does not necessarily disqualify them; as an alternative, they may still be
corrected and counted. The canon that the legislature intends every provision in a
statute to have some purpose, force, or effect34 also supports the conclusion that section
.130 is intended to allow corrections to improper certifications. To hold otherwise
35
would render meaningless the "or corrected" alternative.
To support her reading of "corrected before the subscriptions are counted"
as meaning before counting begins at all, Medicine Crow gives an example of a sponsor
who notices a week after filing the petition that some of the signature booklets lack
proper certification. She contends that that sponsor may correct the improper
certifications if the Division has not yet begun counting signatures. Her example
assumes a process in which the Division might not begin counting signatures as soon
as the petition is filed, despite the immediate commencement of the 60-day review
period. This raises the specter of a corrections deadline that varies from petition to
petition, dependent not on any statutory timetable but rather on the promptness with
32 See AS 15.45.150-.160.
33 State v. Fyfe, 370 P.3d 1092, 1100 (Alaska 2016) (observing that "the
usual grammatical function of the word 'or' is 'to mark an alternative such as either this
or that' " (quoting In re Jesusa V., 85 P.3d 2, 24 (Cal. 2004))).
34 Vazquez, 544 P.3d at 1187 (quoting McDonnell, 299 P.3d at 721).
35 See Suzuki, 41 P.3d at 151-52.
-13- 7775
----------------------- Page 14-----------------------
which the Division actually begins to count signatures in a particular case, which may
be dependent in turn on the Division's workload and resources at the time.
We find no statutory support for Medicine Crow's interpretation. The
only statutory deadline imposed on the Division is that its review must be completed
60 days from the date the petition is filed; the review necessarily includes counting
signatures.36 The Division's Initiative Petition Training Handbook indicates that
subscription counting begins immediately: "From the date a petition is filed with the
division the division will begin verifying signers." The Handbook further instructs that
"[d]aily the division will post the results of signature review on the division['s] website"
during the review period, supporting a conclusion that subscription counting begins
immediately and is ongoing throughout the review period. But whether counting begins
on the day the petition is filed or a few days or weeks later in the review period,
sponsors' ability to make corrections should not depend on this potentially inconsistent
variable.
Medicine Crow also argues that even if corrections can occur during the
review period, after the Division has begun counting signatures, certifications must all
be submitted and corrected before the section .140 and .190 deadlines pass. But this
reading fails to acknowledge that filing deadlines and the deadline for Division review
(and thus for corrections) are distinct in the statutory scheme. By using the disjunctive
"or," the legislature distinguished "at the time of filing" from "before the subscriptions
are counted." The filing deadlines are set by sections .140 and .190, but the Division's
review period - which begins after filing and necessarily includes the opportunity for
corrections, as explained above - is defined by section .150.
36 AS 15.45. 150-.160.
-14- 7775
----------------------- Page 15-----------------------
This reading is supported by our decision in Yute Air Alaska, Inc. v.
McAlpine .37 Yute Air sought to prevent an initiative from appearing on the ballot,
arguing that "the signatures must be verified, that is, the voter's qualifications
ascertained, before the petition may be deemed to be 'filed' for purposes of calculating
the proper election at which the initiative should be submitted to the voters."38 This
involved interpreting the filing deadline created by section .190, which we explained
was distinct from the subscription verification process.39 If the legislature intended that
a petition could not be deemed "filed" until the signatures had been reviewed and
counted, it would have said more than just "filed."40 The purpose of section .190 is to
give the legislature a complete session to consider and potentially respond to an
initiative, such as by enacting legislation that would moot it.41 We concluded, "Both
logically and as a matter of practical experience, the legislature does not need an
initiative petition to be verified before it considers the same subject. It suffices for all
practical purposes that a facially valid initiative be filed."42 In both sections .190 and
.140, "filed" simply means submitted, not reviewed and found sufficient for the ballot.
Medicine Crow argues that the superior court's reading of section .130
improperly distinguishes initiative filing deadlines from other election filing deadlines,
contrary to our repeated statement that election filing deadlines must be strictly
37 698 P.2d 1173 (Alaska 1985).
38 Id. at 1177.
39 Id. at 1178-79.
40 Id. at 1178.
41 See id. at 1179.
42 Id.
-15- 7775
----------------------- Page 16-----------------------
enforced.43 She cites cases from other jurisdictions to illustrate this principle in the
context of ballot initiatives.44 But the parties stipulated that the sponsors filed the
petition on time, meaning that the filing deadline is not at issue. The statute simply sets
a different and later deadline for correcting certifications. The superior court properly
granted summary judgment on this issue to the Division and the sponsors.
2. The plain text of section .130 allows sponsors to correct
certifications by replacing deficient ones.
Medicine Crow also contends that certification corrections - assuming
AS 15.45.130 allows them - must be limited to minor ones like "adding missing dates
or locations." Here, the Division returned 60 booklets notarized by a notary with an
expired commission and allowed those booklets' circulators to either self-certify or
attach new and properly notarized certifications. In Medicine Crow's view, these were
not corrections to the certifications but a full "replacement" of them, which is beyond
what is allowed by section .130. Medicine Crow contends that "corrected" as used in
the statute "means fixing; it cannot mean or permit the replacement or addition of brand-
new certifications to booklets that lacked valid certifications upon filing." But she cites
43 See State v. Jeffery, 170 P.3d 226, 234 (Alaska 2007) ("[I]t is 'well
established, both in Alaska and in other jurisdictions, that election law filing deadlines
are to be strictly enforced. Strict compliance is the rule, and substantial compliance the
rare exception.' " (quoting Falke v. State, 717 P.2d 369, 373 (Alaska 1986))); see
Guerin v. State, Off. of Lieutenant Governor, Div. of Elections, 537 P.3d 770, 779
(Alaska 2023) ("We affirm that election deadlines are mandatory, and therefore
substantial compliance is not sufficient, absent substantial confusion or impossibility."
(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Marshall, 633 P.2d 227, 235
(Alaska 1981))).
44 See, e.g., Idahoans for Open Primaries v. Labrador, 533 P.3d 1262, 1287
(Idaho 2023) (declining to extend signature-gathering period for ballot initiative in
absence of statutory authority); Meyer v. Knudsen , 510 P.3d 1246, 1251 (Mont. 2022)
(declining to extend signature-gathering period for ballot initiative where "[t]he
statutory deadlines that govern petition submission are abundantly clear").
-16- 7775
----------------------- Page 17-----------------------
no support for this limited reading of "corrected." Webster's Dictionary defines
"correct" as "to make or set right, remove the faults or errors from";45 the word's plain
meaning does not limit the ways that a faulty thing may be set right.
In making her argument that "correction" does not include "replacement"
of improper certifications, Medicine Crow relies in part on the requirement of
AS 15.45.130 that petitions be certified "[b]efore being filed." But the legislature's
provision for the post-filing correction of "petitions not properly certified at the time of
filing" necessarily contemplates that some certifications will have to be redone after
filing. The Division's task is to determine whether the corrected certification affidavits
are properly certified and may therefore be counted. We see nothing in the statutory
language that would require the Division to compare refiled certifications with
previously rejected ones and to reject some now-proper certifications based on the
nature of the deficiency that was corrected.
Medicine Crow cites North West Cruiseship Ass'n of Alaska v. State,
Office of Lieutenant Governor, Division of Elections,46 to support her argument that the
need for "replacement" certifications is not a "technical deficiency" that may be
corrected. In North West Cruiseship we explained that "the purpose of certification is
to require circulators to swear to the truthfulness of their affidavits."47 That purpose
was not thwarted by a circulator's failure to include the location when self-certifying a
petition; we therefore held that signature booklets lacking the place of certification
48
"should not be rejected on these grounds."
45 Correct, WEBSTER 'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY (2002).
46 145 P.3d 573 (Alaska 2006).
47
Id. at 577.
48 Id. at 577-78.
-17- 7775
----------------------- Page 18-----------------------
This case differs factually from North West Cruiseship because, as
Medicine Crow points out, the Division in that case accepted certifications that were
technically deficient, while here the Division asked the circulators to replace deficient
certifications with proper ones, which it then accepted. But we uphold the Division's
decisions in both cases for the same reason: the circulators' certifications served their
legal purpose. The circulators of 22AKHE, after correcting deficiencies, still had to
49
swear to the truth of their affidavits' statements.
Nothing in the text of Alaska Statute 15.45.130 or the rationale behind the
certification requirements suggests that otherwise valid "replacement" certifications
should be deemed invalid. We will not add limitations to section .130 that the
legislature did not see fit to impose and that would potentially disenfranchise citizens
who signed initiative petitions in good faith.50 The superior court did not err by
declining to distinguish between "technical corrections" and replacement certifications.
49 Medicine Crow contends that "[t]he findings the superior court made at
trial as to the misconduct of certain circulators reinforce the importance of the petition
certification requirements" and undermine the court's earlier conclusion on summary
judgment that certification errors - particularly those involving the expired notary
commission - did not invalidate signature booklets and could be corrected. But the
legal question of whether certifications may be corrected under AS 15.45.130 is distinct
from factual questions about circulator misconduct, which are not before us on
Medicine Crow's appeal. Alaska Statute 15.45.130 does not encourage fraud simply
by allowing correction; whether a certification is fraudulent is a different and fact-
dependent question.
50 See, e.g., Fischer v. Stout, 741 P.2d 217, 225 (Alaska 1987) ("Legislative
history provides little guidance in interpreting the facially ambiguous phrase, 'may vote
under the previous name. ' Accordingly, we will seek a construction of the phrase which
avoids the wholesale disfranchisement of qualified electors.").
-18- 7775
----------------------- Page 19-----------------------
3. The legislative history of AS 15.45.130 does not contradict an
interpretation that allows sponsors to correct certifications
after statutory filing deadlines.
Medicine Crow argues that the legislative history surrounding the
adoption of the phrase "or corrected before the subscriptions are counted" in section
.130 "does not support the superior court's interpretation allowing replacement
51
certifications." Before 2005, AS 15.45.130 did not include the "or corrected" phrase,
52
which was added by House Bill (H.B.) 94.
Medicine Crow highlights comments made by the Division's then-director
during committee discussion of the bill. The director testified that "at the beginning of
the process, when we can notify the carriers of the petition that they've got a problem,
it can be resolved. But should it happen, should they turn in their books at the last
minute, and not have that certification done, it is a way to prevent signatures [from]
being counted."53 Sponsors' failure to follow the requirements regarding payment
54
disclosure also "become[s] a way for the petition booklet to be . . . invalidated."
Medicine Crow argues that these statements confirm "that initiative petitions that are
filed with the Division at the last minute without proper certifications will be rejected,
whereas earlier-filed petitions could still be corrected," and "submitting booklets
purportedly 'notarized' by someone who is not a notary - which is what happened
here - is equivalent to submitting booklets that are not notarized at all."
51 As relevant to the issue at hand, former AS 15.45.130 (2004) read:
"Before being filed, each petition shall be certified by an affidavit by the person who
personally circulated the petition. . . . In determining the sufficiency of the petition, the
lieutenant governor may not count subscriptions on petitions not properly certified."
52 House Bill (H.B.) 94, 24th Leg., 1st Sess. (2005).
53 Testimony of Laura Glaiser, Dir., Div. of Elections at 09:23:17-09:23:31,
Hearing on H.B. 94 Before the H. State Affs. Standing Comm., 24th Leg., 1st Sess.
(March 15, 2005).
54 Id. at 09:23:08-09:24:23.
-19- 7775
----------------------- Page 20-----------------------
The director's testimony, however, was not about the possibility of
corrections, but rather the procedure in place before the adoption of H.B. 94; the prior
version of section .130 did not allow for the correction of certifications at all.55 The
director was commenting on a proposed amendment that would prohibit circulators
from receiving any payment.56 As written, the amendment applied only to referendum
and recall petitions.57 But the director pointed out that the law required circulators of
initiative petitions to make certain disclosures about payment in their certifications of
filed signature books;58 she advised that an amendment banning payment should also
apply in the context of the initiative statutes "if in fact you don't want circulators to be
paid for initiative petitions."59 Neither she nor anyone else at hearings on H.B. 94
commented on the phrase "or corrected before the subscriptions are counted."
The legislators did, however, discuss the bill's overarching purpose. In
the same testimony highlighted by Medicine Crow, the director testified that the
55 Former AS 15.45.130 (2004).
56 Minutes, H. State Affs. Standing Comm. Hearing on H.B. 94, 24th Leg.,
1st Sess. 09:17:47 (Mar. 15, 2005) (statement of Rep. Jay Ramras),
https://www.akleg.gov/basis/Meeting/Detail?Meeting=HSTA%202005-03-
15%2008:00:00.
57 Id. (proposing to amend AS 15.45.340 and .360, which govern referendum
petitions, and AS 15.45.580 and .600, which govern recall petitions).
58 Id. at 09:22:12 (testimony of Laura Glaiser, Dir., Div. of Elections); see
former AS 15.45.130(8) (2004) (requiring circulator's affidavit to state that "the
circulator prominently placed, in the space provided under AS 15.45.090(5) before
circulation of the petition, in bold capital letters, the circulator's name and, if the
circulator has received payment or agreed to receive payment for the collection of
signatures on the petition, the name of each person or organization that has paid or
agreed to pay the circulator for collection of signatures on the petition").
59 Minutes, H. State Affs. Standing Comm. Hearing on H.B. 94, 24th Leg.,
1st Sess. 09:22:12 (Mar. 15, 2005) (testimony of Laura Glaiser, Dir., Div. of Elections),
https://www.akleg.gov/basis/Meeting/Detail?Meeting=HSTA%202005-03-
15%2008:00:00.
-20- 7775
----------------------- Page 21-----------------------
60
proposed legislation was intended to make things easier for petition circulators.
Representative Ramras stated during the hearing that "what he like[d] best about H.B.
94 is that it's 'a low common denominator bill'; it keeps making it progressively easier
for people to participate in the democratic process."61 Another representative "echoed
[the director's] comment that HB 94 is supposed to make the [initiative] process easier
and friendly for a voter."62 Allowing certifications to be corrected after the petition is
filed aligns with this purpose; it allows the signatures in those booklets to be counted.
The Division highlights helpful testimony on a bill introduced a year
earlier, H.B. 523, in which the "or corrected" language was first proposed.63 In a
hearing on that bill, Representative Gruenberg - who later described the purpose of
H.B. 94 as to make the initiative process easier64 - proposed an amendment that would
add the "or corrected" language.65 Representative Gruenberg explained that the
purpose of this language was to allow substantive corrections, reasoning that "if
60 Id. at 09:22:12 (testimony of Laura Glaiser, Dir., Div. of Elections).
61 Id. at 09:14:50 (statement of Rep. Jay Ramras).
62 Id. at 09:24:55 (statement of Rep. Max Gruenberg).
63 H.B. 523, 23d Leg., 2d Sess. (2004). The Division concedes that this bill
and testimony were not discussed at the trial court. However, it also correctly points
out that "[this court] may affirm a judgment on any grounds that the record supports,
even grounds not relied on by the [lower] court." Smith v. Kofstad, 206 P.3d 441, 444
(Alaska 2009) (second alteration in original) (quoting Van Sickle v. McGraw, 134 P.3d
338, 341 n.10 (Alaska 2006)).
64 Minutes, H. State Affs. Standing Comm. Hearing on H.B. 94, 24th Leg.,
1st Sess. 09:24:55 (Mar. 15, 2005) (statement of Rep. Max Gruenberg),
https://www.akleg.gov/basis/Meeting/Detail?Meeting=HSTA%202005-03-
15%2008:00:00.
65 Minutes, H. State Affs. Standing Comm. Hearing on H.B. 523, 23d
Leg., 2d Sess. (Apr. 26, 2004) (statement of Rep. Max
Gruenberg), https://www.akleg.gov/basis/Meeting/Detail?Meeting=HSTA%202004-
04-26%2008:17:00.
-21- 7775
----------------------- Page 22-----------------------
somebody makes a mistake, the petition shouldn't be thrown out, because that affects
hundreds of people who have signed the petition in good faith."66 Division Director
Laura Glaiser added that the amendment would mean that "[i]f we find . . . a circulator
hasn't filled out the affidavit, we can make that correction and then count all those
signatures in the books, rather than casting them aside due to a technical failure by the
circulator," which would be an "improvement" on the current process.67 The Division
and superior court's interpretation of the "or corrected" language accords with these
statements of purpose, allowing voters' signatures to be counted once mistakes on
certifications have been corrected.
Medicine Crow also argues that her reading of "corrected" to allow only
technical fixes is supported by the legislature's repeal of AS 15.45.170. Before it was
repealed in 1998 by Senate Bill (S.B.) 313,68 AS 15.45.170 was titled "Submission of
supplementary petition" and read: "Upon receipt of notice that the filing of the petition
was improper, the initiative committee may amend and correct the petition by
circulating and filing a supplementary petition within 30 days of the date that notice
was given."69 Medicine Crow argues that "[b]y repealing this statute, the legislature
confirmed that sponsors of ballot initiatives can no longer 'amend and correct' their
petitions after the statutory deadlines," which means that replacement certifications are
not allowed. In support, Medicine Crow quotes the sponsoring senator's statement for
70
the bill: "Simply put, you either got 'em, or you don[]'t!!!"
66 Id.
67 Id. (testimony of Laura Glaiser, Dir., Div. of Elections).
68 S.B. 313, 20th Leg., 2d Sess. (1998).
69 Former AS 15.45.170 (1997).
70 Senator Bert Sharp, Sponsor Statement for S.B. 313, 20th Leg., 2d Sess.
(1998). As part of another sponsor statement, the senator explained that S.B. 313 sought
-22- 7775
----------------------- Page 23-----------------------
Former AS 15.45.170 provided for submission of a supplementary
petition only in the event that "the filing of the petition was improper."71 The propriety
of the overall petition itself72 is based on the number of signatures submitted at the time
of filing.73 Former AS 15.45.170 gave sponsors more time to collect additional
signatures after the initial filing and the Division's review period; the elimination of
section .170 means sponsors can collect signatures only until the filing deadline. The
bill sponsor's comment of "you either got 'em, or you don[]'t" refers to signatures, not
certifications. The statute did not comment on corrections to certifications, a procedure
that was not even proposed until several years later. Furthermore, to the extent that the
repeal of section . 170 was meant to reduce delays between filing and certification, it
has no relevance for corrections under section .130, which must happen within the 60
days already allowed for the Division's review.74 The Division correctly interprets
section .130 as not allowing the collection of more signatures - which would be
to eliminate section .170's "30 day extension" because "[t]he flurry of initiatives that
we are currently experiencing has resulted in the verification of signatures and thus
qualifying for the ballot coming as late as the middle of April resulting in eliminating
the possibility of the Legislature being able to react by crafting a similar statute."
Senator Bert Sharp, Sponsor Statement for S.B. 313, 20th Leg., 2d Sess. (1998). This
statement mischaracterizes the relationship between signature verification and notice to
the legislature. We explained in Yute Air that "the legislature does not need an initiative
petition to be verified before it considers the same subject" and that the petition's filing
suffices to give the legislature notice of and opportunity to pass legislation in response.
Yute Air Alaska, Inc. v. McAlpine, 698 P.2d 1173, 1179 (Alaska 1985).
71 Former AS 15.45.170 (1997).
72 Res. Dev. Council for Alaska, Inc. v. Vote Yes for Alaska 's Fair Share,
494 P.3d 541, 544 (Alaska 2021) ("The signatures collected in the petition booklets are
submitted 'as a single instrument' called the petition.").
73 AS 15.45.160.
74 See supra Part IV.A.1.
-23- 7775
----------------------- Page 24-----------------------
contrary to the purpose of former section .170's repeal - but permitting signatures
75
already gathered to count once deficient certifications have been corrected.
In sum, the legislative history leading up to the addition of the "or
corrected" clause of AS 15.45.130 supports an interpretation that allows sponsors to
correct certifications during the Division's review period.
B. Allowing Sponsors To Correct Certifications Does Not Conflict With
Regulatory Requirements.
Medicine Crow also contends that the superior court erred by failing to
recognize that the Division's actions here violated its own regulations. Medicine Crow
bases two arguments on 6 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 25.240: that the petition
should have been rejected as "patently defective" and that "piecemeal" correction of
petitions, as was allowed here, is contrary to the regulation's "single instrument"
requirement.
6 AAC 25.240 elaborates on the initiative process defined by statute. It
mandates that "[a]ll petition booklets must be filed together as a single instrument, and
must be accompanied by a written statement signed by the submitting committee
member or the committee's designee acknowledging the number of booklets included
in the submission."76 Further, a "petition that at the time of submission contains on its
face an insufficient number of booklets or signed subscriber pages required for
75 Medicine Crow also argues that another provision, AS 15.45.120,
supports her argument that "the Division must treat a filed petition as being in a
lockbox" that cannot be changed post-filing. Alaska Statute 15.45.120 effectively
provides that subscribers to a petition may withdraw their names "only by giving written
notice to the lieutenant governor before the date the petition is filed." This is not
instructive for the same reasons that section .170 is not instructive - it focuses on
signatures, not circulator certifications. The signatures cannot change once the petition
is filed, per section .120, but this has no effect on section .130's regulation of circulator
certifications.
76 6 AAC 25.240(c).
-24- 7775
----------------------- Page 25-----------------------
certification will be determined by the director to have a patent defect."77 A petition
with a patent defect filed on the deadline for submission "will be certified as
insufficient," but a similarly defective petition filed before the deadline "will be
declared incomplete and all petition booklets will be returned to the committee or
78
designee for resubmission; the resubmitted petition must be filed by the deadline."
1. The petition did not have a "patent defect" requiring the
Division to reject it.
Medicine Crow argues that 6 AAC 25.240(f) required the Division to
reject the petition and return it to the sponsors for resubmission because it contained a
"patent defect." Under the regulation, a petition has a patent defect if, "at the time of
submission," it "contains on its face an insufficient number of booklets or signed
subscriber pages required for certification."79 According to Medicine Crow, "the 60
booklets that were 'notarized' by someone who was not a notary actually contained a
'patent defect' on the day they were filed." She contends that when the Division noticed
during its full review that the certifications had been improperly certified, the number
of signatures was reduced "by a facially[]disqualifying amount" - in other words, the
improperly certified signatures were not valid signatures at all, meaning that the petition
had had a facially insufficient number of signatures when it was filed and should have
been rejected and returned for resubmission.
The superior court agreed with the Division's explanation that, when a
petition is filed, "the Division reviews each petition booklet 'on its face' to determine
whether there are enough booklets containing enough signatures." According to the
court, that initial review is also "intended to screen out incomplete certification
affidavits, such as those with missing dates or locations, or missing certificates." If the
77 6 AAC 25.240(f).
78
Id.
79 Id.
-25- 7775
----------------------- Page 26-----------------------
initial review rules out enough booklets such that the remaining ones "cannot possibly
have the requisite number of signatures," the petition has a patent defect. Because under
6 AAC 25.240(f) this initial review happens "at the time of submission," the court ruled
that a defect is not patent if it could not have been detected " 'on its face' and 'at the
time of submission' " - and because the notarization errors were discovered later, 6
AAC 25.240(f) does not apply.
Medicine Crow argues that requiring a patent defect to be one apparent
from the face of the petition is an unworkably subjective standard, because it depends
entirely on whether the Division notices a flaw during its initial review. But the court's
ruling - that "the Division could not have detected the expired notary issue in the 60
booklets 'on its face,' " (emphasis added) - suggests an objective standard.
The superior court's interpretation conflicts to some extent with the
regulation's plain language. The regulation says that a patent defect is found when a
petition "contains on its face an insufficient number of booklets or signed subscriber
pages required for certification."80 As the Division's handbook explains, the initial
81
review is "a rough count of the signatures . . . to confirm that there are at least enough."
The initial review, therefore, does not involve the adequacy of the certifications; the
question is only whether the petition on its face has enough signatures to meet the
80 6 AAC 25.240(f) (emphasis added).
81
Interpreting the 6 AAC 25.240(f) initial review as a "rough count" is
reasonable. We defer to an agency's interpretation of its own regulation "unless its
interpretation is plainly erroneous and inconsistent with the regulation." Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP v. State, Dep't of Admin., 324 P.3d 293, 299 (Alaska 2014) (internal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting Kuzmin v. State, Com. Fisheries Entry Comm'n , 223
P.3d 86, 89 (Alaska 2009)). Medicine Crow argues that the rules of statutory
interpretation apply equally to regulations, implying that the deference discussed in
Davis Wright Tremaine is inapplicable, but the case she cites involved one agency
interpreting another agency's regulation, which is not the case here. See Tea ex rel.
A.T. , 278 P.3d 1262, 1263 (Alaska 2012).
-26- 7775
----------------------- Page 27-----------------------
requirements for the initiative to appear on the ballot. Because the sponsors presented
enough signature booklets, the Division's regulations allowed it to move on to its actual,
more thorough review, during which it discovered the notarization defects in the
certifications.
Limiting the 6 AAC 25.240(f) facial review to the number of signatures is
logical. Once the deadline has passed, new signatures cannot be collected. That is why
6 AAC 25.240(f) requires that patently defective petitions filed on the deadline be
"certified as insufficient," as it would be impossible to correct the deficiency in the
number of signatures before the deadline.82 Patently defective petitions filed before the
deadline are returned as "incomplete" because there may still be time to collect the
necessary number of signatures.83 While the superior court read "patent defect" in 6
AAC 25.240(f) too expansively, it remains true that Medicine Crow did not identify a
patent defect that would have required the Division to reject the petition in order to
84
comply with its regulation.
2. The regulatory requirement that petitions be filed as a "single
instrument" does not bar correction of certifications for
individual signature booklets.
Medicine Crow also relies on 6 AAC 25.240(c), which provides that "[a]ll
petition booklets must be filed together as a single instrument, and must be
accompanied by a written statement signed by the submitting committee member or the
committee's designee acknowledging the number of booklets included in the
submission." Medicine Crow contends that the "single instrument" requirement means
82 6 AAC 25.240(f)(1).
83 6 AAC 25.240(f)(2).
84 Our reading of 6 AAC 25.240(f) does not mean that the Division may not
identify deficiencies during its initial review - such as certification errors - that,
while not "patent" as defined in the regulation, nonetheless justify returning booklets
for correction and resubmission.
-27- 7775
----------------------- Page 28-----------------------
that individual booklets cannot be returned for correction after filing, at least not after
the filing deadline. In the Division's interpretation of its regulation, however, the
single-instrument requirement is intended only to prevent circulators from submitting
their booklets to the Division individually; it has no bearing on whether individual
booklets may be returned for correction and refiling.
Nothing in the plain language of 6 AAC 25.240(c) discusses post-filing
procedure or explicitly disallows "piecemeal" correction of petition booklets after
filing, either before or after the filing deadline has passed. The Division's explanation
of the regulation is neither "plainly erroneous [nor] inconsistent with the regulation,"
and the superior court properly deferred to it.85 Once a petition has been filed as a single
instrument, 6 AAC 25.240(c) does not prevent the Division from allowing corrections
on a booklet-by-booklet basis. The superior court correctly determined on summary
judgment that the Division's procedure did not violate this regulatory requirement.
CONCLUSION
The superior court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Division
and the sponsors is AFFIRMED.
85 Davis Wright Tremaine LLP , 324 P.3d at 299 (internal quotation marks
omitted) (quoting Kuzmin , 223 P.3d at 89).
-28- 7775
 |
| Case Law Statutes, Regs & Rules Constitutions Miscellaneous |
|
