Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Alaska's new elections system challenged in state court

Alaska
Zihao Chen/Getty Images

The sweeping overhaul of Alaska elections that won narrow approval last month is already being challenged in court.

A lawsuit filed in state court Tuesday by members of three political parties argues the new system must be stopped before it violates Alaskans' right to free political association, free speech, petition, due process and other rights guaranteed by the U.S. and state constitutions.

If the suit fails, starting in 2022 the traditional partisan primaries will be eliminated in favor of single contests open to all candidates for governor, state executive offices, the Legislature and Congress. The top four finishers, regardless of party, will advance to a general election reliant on ranked-choice voting.


Alaska Independence Party Chairman Robert Bird, Libertarian Scott Kohlhass and Republican attorney Kenneth Jacobus sued a day after the state certified that the ballot measure prevailed by just 3,800 out of 344,000 votes cast, a margin of 1 percentage point.

The plaintiffs argue this new election system will prevent voters from participating in their political party's process for selecting candidates to represent them and the party in a manner consistent with the party's rules.

"All political parties may select their candidates in accord with the rules of each party. This right to do so is a right guaranteed to each party and its members by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, applicable to the defendants through the Fourteenth Amendment and the Constitution of the State of Alaska. This right of all political parties and their members has been confirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States," the lawsuit argues.

In addition, the suit maintains, electoral history in the state suggests that only Democrats and Republicans will advance to the November ballot, "leaving no room for members of other parties."

Defendants include the state Division of Elections and election officials. The Alaska Department of Law "will review the pleadings and respond in a timely manner," spokesperson Maria Bahr said.

In addition to making Alaska the only state other than Maine using ranked elections for almost all contests, the ballot measure also imposes new campaign finance disclosure requirements for legislative and local races.


Read More

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA)

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA) at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. House Republicans

(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Democrats Gerrymandered David Valadao’s District. Did It Backfire?

GOP US Rep. David Valadao has never won his seat in Congress on Republican votes alone because too few Republicans live in the district where he was raised, lives, and runs his family farm.

- YouTube youtu.be

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep ReadingShow less