Alaska Ballot Measure 2, Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Laws Initiative (2020)
Alaska Ballot Measure 2 | |
---|---|
Election date November 3, 2020 | |
Topic Electoral systems | |
Status Approved | |
Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
Alaska Ballot Measure 2, the Alaska Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Laws Initiative, was on the ballot in Alaska as an indirect initiated state statute on November 3, 2020. Ballot Measure 2 was approved.
A "yes" vote supported making changes to Alaska's election policies, including:
|
A "no" vote opposed the ballot initiative to change several of Alaska's election policies, including the adoption of top-four primaries, ranked-choice voting for general elections, and new campaign finance disclosure requirements. |
Election results
Alaska Ballot Measure 2 |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
174,032 | 50.55% | |||
No | 170,251 | 49.45% |
Aftermath
Kohlhaas v. Alaska
Lawsuit overview | |
Issue: Does Ballot Measure 2 violate plaintiffs' rights to free political association, free speech, and due process? | |
Court: Alaska Supreme Court | |
Ruling: Ballot Measure 2 did not violate plaintiffs' rights; political parties can choose their preferred candidates through various means | |
Plaintiff(s): Scott Kohlhaas, Alaskan Independence Party, Robert M. Bird, and Kenneth P. Jacobus | Defendant(s): State of Alaska, Office of Lieutenant Governor Division of Elections, Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer, and Director Gail Fenumiai |
Source: Alaska Supreme Court
On December 1, 2020, the Alaskan Independence Party, Scott Kohlhaas, Robert M. Bird, and Kenneth P. Jacobus sued the state in superior court to declare Ballot Measure 2 as unconstitutional. Plaintiffs argued that Ballot Measure 2 violated their rights to free political association, free speech, and due process under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1 of the Alaska Constitution. [1]
On July 29, 2021, Judge Gregory Miller issued an opinion upholding Ballot Measure 2. He wrote that plaintiffs had "not met their burden of showing that any part of the new law is unconstitutional on its face."[2]
The decision was appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case on January 18, 2022.[3] On January 19, the Alaska Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling but said an opinion would be issued at a later date.[4]
The Alaska Supreme Court released an unanimous opinion finding Ballot Measure 2 constitutional. Regarding the argument that Ballot Measure 2 violated free political association, the opinion said, "Political parties do not have a right to control the State’s primary elections. ... 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. ... 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 is entirely free to do so. The party can then throw whatever support it can muster 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."[5]
Lawsuit in federal court over donor disclosure provisions
On April 7, 2022, several political donors and independent expenditure groups filed a federal lawsuit alleging that certain campaign finance disclosure provisions of Ballot Measure 2 are unconstitutional and violate the First Amendment. The lawsuit challenged the provision requiring persons and entities that make political contributions of more than $2,000 that were themselves derived from donations, contributions, dues, or gifts to disclose the true sources (as defined in law) of the political contributions. It also challenged the provision requiring disclaimers on political communications and ads identifying any out-of-state contributors that funded the communications and ads.[6]
The lawsuit named the members of the Alaska Public Offices Commission in their official capacity as defendants. It named the following plaintiffs: Doug Smith of Anchorage, a spokesperson for the Liberty Justice Center; Robert Griffin; Allen Vezey; Albert Haynes; Trevor Shaw; the Alaska Free Market Coalition; and Families of the Last Frontier.[6]
On July 14, 2022, a federal judge denied the request to block the campaign finance provisions of Ballot Measure 2. U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason said in a written ruling that in the context of U.S. elections, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that "lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter ... election rules on the eve of an election," and that the plaintiffs “waited over one year to seek preliminary injunctive relief.”[7]
Overview
What election policies did this ballot initiative change?
Ballot Measure 2 made changes to Alaska's election policies, including:[8]
- requiring persons and entities that contribute more than $2,000 that were themselves derived from donations, contributions, dues, or gifts to disclose the true sources (as defined by Measure 2) of the political contributions;
- replacing partisan primaries with open top-four primaries for state executive, state legislative, and congressional offices; and
- establishing ranked-choice voting for general elections, including for presidential elections, in which voters can rank the candidates that succeeded from the primaries.
How were top-four primaries and ranked-choice voting designed to work in Alaska?
Alaska became the first state to adopt top-four primaries for state executive, state legislative, and congressional offices. Under Ballot Measure 2, candidates run in a single primary election, regardless of a candidate's party affiliation. The four candidates that receive the most votes advance to the general election. As of 2020, California and Washington used a top-two system for primaries.[8]
At the general election, voters elect state and federal candidates using ranked-choice voting. For state executive, state legislative, and congressional elections, voters rank the four candidates that advanced from their top-four primaries. A candidate needs a simple majority of the vote (50%+1) to be declared the winner of an election. If no candidate wins a simple majority of the vote, the candidate with the fewest votes would be eliminated. People who voted for that candidate as their first choice would have their votes redistributed to their second choice. The tabulation process would continue as rounds until there are two candidates remaining, and the candidate with the greatest number of votes would be declared the winner.[8]
Who was behind the campaigns surrounding the ballot initiative?
- See also: Campaign finance
Alaskans for Better Elections led the campaign in support of Ballot Measure 2. The campaign's committees had raised $6.8 million, with contributions from several organizations that seek to change election policies. Unite America provided $3.4 million, and Action Now Initiative contributed $2.9 million.[9] Former Rep. Jason Grenn (I-22) was chairperson of the campaign.[10] Bruce Botelho (D), the former mayor of Juneau, Alaska, and Bonnie Jack (R) were co-chairs of the campaign. Green described the ballot initiative as "kind of a three-pronged attack on making our elections better.”[11]
Defend Alaska Elections led campaign in opposition to Ballot Measure 2. Defend Alaska Elections, along with the Protect Our Elections PAC, had raised $579,426. The State Republican Leadership Committee contributed $150,000 and the Alaska Republican Party provided $50,000 to Defend Alaska Elections. John Sturgeon, the chairperson of Defend Alaska Elections, described Ballot Measure 2 as “a 25-page-long mess that isn’t fair, democratic, or needed.”[12]
Initiative design
Click on the arrows (▼) below for summaries of the different provisions of the ballot initiative.
Changes to campaign finance laws: creating new disclosure requirements regarding contribution sources
Requirement to disclose the true sources of political contributions
The ballot initiative was designed to require persons and entities that contribute more than $2,000 per year from funds that were themselves derived from donations, contributions, dues, or gifts to disclose the true sources of the political contributions. The ballot initiative would define true sources as persons and entities whose contributions are derived from wages, investment income, inheritance, or revenue from selling goods or services. Organizations that receive less than $2,000 in dues or contributions per person per year would be considered the true source.[8]
Penalities for failure to disclose true sources
The ballot initiative would penalize contributors and intermediaries that misreport or fail to report the true sources of contributions. Penalties would be as follows:[8]
- delays in reporting true sources: penalized not more than $1,000 for each delinquent day
- misreporting or failing to disclose true sources: penalized not more than the contribution's amount
- intentional misreporting or failing to disclose true sources: penalized not more than three times the contribution's amount
Contributors who are penalized under the ballot initiative would have a right to appeal to the Alaska Superior Court.[8]
Statements about out-of-state donors on political communications
The ballot initiative would require that political communications that are paid for by outside-funded entities include the following statement: "A MAJORITY OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO (OUTSIDE-FUNDED ENTITY’S NAME) CAME FROM OUTSIDE THE STATE OF ALASKA." The ballot initiative would define outside-funded entities as entities that make independent expenditures in candidate elections and that received more than 50 percent of their aggregate contributions during the past year from true sources that resided or had their principal place of business outside of Alaska.[8]
Contributions cap on joint governor and lieutenant governor campaigns
The ballot initiative would create a cap on contributions made to joint campaigns for governor and lieutenant governor at $1,000 per year for individuals and $2,000 per year for groups.[8]
Adoption of top-four primaries: replace partisan primaries with top-four primaries for state and congressional offices
The ballot initiative would replace partisan primary elections with top-four primary elections for state executive, state legislative, and congressional offices.[8]
As of 2020 in Alaska, primary elections were used to determine the nominees for political parties in advance of a general election. State law allowed political parties to decide whether to operate their primaries as open or closed. An open primary is any primary election in which a voter does not have to formally affiliate with a political party in order to vote in its primary. A closed primary is a type of primary election in which a voter must affiliate formally with a political party in advance of the election date in order to participate in that party's primary.
The ballot initiative would require candidates, regardless of their party affiliation, to run in the same primary election for state executive, state legislative, and congressional offices. Voters, regardless of their party affiliation, would all vote in the same primary election.[8]
On the top-four primary ballot, candidates that are registered with a political party could have the party designated after their name, upon their request. Candidates would also be allowed to request that nonpartisan or undeclared be placed after their name. If the candidate did not request any designation, the candidate would have undeclared placed after the candidate's name.[8]
Under the top-four primary system, the four candidates that receive the greatest number of votes would move on to the general election.[8]
Adoption of ranked-choice voting: use ranked-choice voting in general elections for state, congressional, and presidential offices
The ballot initiative would adopt ranked-choice voting for the state, congressional, and presidential elections on general election ballots.[8]
As of 2020 in Alaska, the candidate who receives a plurality of votes is declared the winner of an election. The candidate need not win an outright majority to be elected. This system is sometimes referred to as plurality voting, first-past-the-post, or winner-take-all. This is the most common voting system used in the United States.[8]
Under the ballot initiative, voters rank the candidates for a given office by preference on their ballots. A candidate would need a simple majority of the vote (50%+1) to be declared the winner of an election. If no candidate wins a simple majority of the vote, the candidate with the fewest votes would be eliminated. People who voted for that candidate as their first choice would have their votes redistributed to their second choice. The tabulation process would continue as rounds until there are two candidates remaining, and the candidate with the greatest number of votes would be declared the winner.[8]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title was as follows:[13]
“ | An Act Replacing the Political Party Primary with an Open Primary System and Ranked-Choice General Election, and Requiring Additional Campaign Finance Disclosures[14] | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary was as follows:[13]
“ |
This act would get rid of the party primary system, and political parties would no longer select their candidates to appear on the general election ballot. Instead, this act would create an open nonpartisan primary where all candidates would appear on one ballot. Candidates could choose to have a political party preference listed next to their name or be listed as “undeclared” or “nonpartisan.” The four candidates with the most votes in the primary election would have their names placed on the general election ballot. This act would establish ranked-choice voting for the general election. Voters would have the option to “rank” candidates in order of choice. Voters would rank their first choice candidate as “1”, second choice candidate as “2”, and so on. Voters “1” choice would be counted first. If no candidate received a majority after counting the first-ranked votes, then the candidate with the least amount of “1” votes would be removed from counting. Those ballots that ranked the removed candidate as "1" would then be counted for the voters' “2” ranked candidate. This process would repeat until one candidate received a majority of the remaining votes. If voters still want to choose only one candidate, they can. This act would also require additional disclosures for contributions to independent expenditure groups and relating to the sources of contributions. It would also require a disclaimer on paid election communications by independent expenditure groups funded by a majority of out of state money. Should this initiative become law?[14] |
” |
Full text
The full text of the ballot initiative is below:[8]
Readability score
- See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The lieutenant governor wrote the ballot language for this measure.
|
Support
Alaskans for Better Elections, also known as Yes on 2 for Better Elections, led the campaign in support of the ballot initiative. Former Rep. Jason Grenn (I-22) was chairperson of the campaign.[10] Bruce Botelho (D), the former mayor of Juneau, Alaska, and Bonnie Jack (R) were co-chairs of the campaign. Green described the ballot initiative as "kind of a three-pronged attack on making our elections better."[11][15][16][17]
Supporters
Officials
- State Senator Tom Begich (D)
- Speaker of the House Bryce Edgmon (Independent)
- State Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins (D)
- State Representative Daniel Ortiz (Independent)
- State Representative Louise Stutes (R)
- State Representative Adam Wool (D)
Former Officials
- Former State Representative Jason Grenn (Independent)
- Former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld (R)
Political Parties
Organizations
- Action Now Initiative
- American Promise
- Democracy for America
- FairVote Action Fund
- League of Women Voters of Alaska
- Represent.Us
- Unite America
Arguments
Official arguments
The following is the argument in support of Ballot Measure 2 found in the Official Election Pamphlet:[18]
|
Opposition
Defend Alaska Elections and Protect Our Elections were registered to oppose the ballot measure.[19] John Sturgeon, known for his role in the case Sturgeon v. Frost, was chairperson of Defend Alaska Elections.[20]
Opponents
Officials
- State Senator John B. Coghill (R)
- State Representative Glenn Prax (R)
- State Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard (R)
- State Representative David Talerico (R)
Former Officials
- Former U.S. Senator Mark Begich (D)
- Former Governor Sean Parnell (R)
- Former Lieutenant Governor Mead Treadwell (R)
Political Parties
Organizations
- Americans for Prosperity
- Americans for Tax Reform
- Club for Growth
- Republican State Leadership Committee
Arguments
Official arguments
The following is the argument in support of Ballot Measure 2 found in the Official Election Pamphlet:[21]
|
Campaign finance
The Yes on 2 for Better Elections PAC was registered to support Ballot Measure 2. The Alaskans for Better Elections PAC supported the ballot initiative during the signature-gathering phase. Together, the committees raised $6.8 million, including $3.4 million from Unite America.[9]
Defend Alaska Elections and Protect Our Elections were registered to oppose the ballot initiative. Together, the committees raised $579,426, including $100,000 from the State Republican Leadership Committee.[9]
Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Support | $6,625,065.77 | $219,478.56 | $6,844,544.33 | $6,615,021.76 | $6,834,500.32 |
Oppose | $574,192.93 | $5,233.25 | $579,426.18 | $567,069.34 | $572,302.59 |
Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the ballot initiative.[9]
Committees in support of Ballot Measure 2 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
Yes on 2 for Better Elections | $5,888,612.77 | $195,825.15 | $6,084,437.92 | $6,151,197.06 | $6,347,022.21 |
Alaskans for Better Elections | $736,453.00 | $23,653.41 | $760,106.41 | $463,824.70 | $487,478.11 |
Total | $6,625,065.77 | $219,478.56 | $6,844,544.33 | $6,615,021.76 | $6,834,500.32 |
Donors
The following were the top-five donors who contributed to the support committee.[9]
Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
---|---|---|---|
Unite America | $3,396,000.00 | $0.00 | $3,396,000.00 |
Action Now Initiative | $2,802,000.00 | $127,583.00 | $2,929,583.00 |
Unite and Renew Fund | $300,000.00 | $0.00 | $300,000.00 |
4 Score 7 | $59,000.00 | $0.00 | $59,000.00 |
Represent.Us | $0.00 | $52,581.82 | $52,581.82 |
Opposition
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to the ballot initiative.[9]
Committees in opposition to Ballot Measure 2 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
Defend Alaska Elections - Vote No on 2 | $573,017.93 | $5,233.25 | $578,251.18 | $565,898.95 | $571,132.20 |
Protect Our Elections No on 2 | $1,175.00 | $0.00 | $1,175.00 | $1,170.39 | $1,170.39 |
Total | $574,192.93 | $5,233.25 | $579,426.18 | $567,069.34 | $572,302.59 |
Donors
The following were the top-five donors who contributed to the opposition committees.[9]
Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
---|---|---|---|
Republican State Leadership Committee | $150,000.00 | $0.00 | $150,000.00 |
Republican Party of Alaska | $50,000.00 | $0.00 | $50,000.00 |
Americans For Prosperity Action | $45,000.00 | $0.00 | $45,000.00 |
Club For Growth | $45,000.00 | $0.00 | $45,000.00 |
GCI Communications | $45,000.00 | $0.00 | $45,000.00 |
Northern Holdings, Inc. | $45,000.00 | $0.00 | $45,000.00 |
Methodology
To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.
Polls
- See also: 2020 ballot measure polls
Alaska Ballot Measure 2, Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Laws Initiative (2020) | |||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Poll | Poll sponsor | Support | Oppose | Undecided | Margin of error | Sample size | |||||||||||||
Claster Consulting (likely voters) 9/22/2020 - 9/27/2020 | Alaskans for Better Elections | 59.0% | 17.0% | 24.0% | +/-3.5 | 803 | |||||||||||||
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org. |
Background
Top-four primary election
- See also: Top-four primary
As of 2020, no states utilized a top-four primary for state or federal elections. The ballot initiative made Alaska the first state with a top-four primary system. In a top-four primary, candidates for an office, regardless of party affiliation, are listed on a single ballot. The top four vote-getters advance to the general election.
California and Washington passed ballot initiatives to replace their partisan primaries with top-two primaries, in which the two candidates receiving the most votes, regardless of party affiliation, proceed to the general election. Voters in Florida also decided a top-two primary ballot initiative, titled Amendment 3, at the election on November 3, 2020.
Learn more about top-two primary ballot measures:
Ballot measures related to primary election systems | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | Measure | System type | Yes votes (%) | No votes (%) | Outcome |
2004 | Washington Initiative 872 | Top-two primary | 59.85% | 40.15% | |
2004 | California Proposition 62 | Blanket primary | 46.17% | 53.83% | |
2008 | Oregon Measure 65 | Top-two primary | 34.06% | 65.94% | |
2010 | California Proposition 14 | Top-two primary | 53.73% | 46.27% | |
2012 | Arizona Proposition 121 | Top-two primary | 33.07% | 66.93% | |
2014 | Oregon Measure 90 | Top-two primary | 31.77% | 68.23% | |
2020 | Florida Amendment 3 | Top-two primary | 57.03%[22] | 42.97% |
Ranked-choice voting
- See also: Ranked-choice voting
Ranked-choice voting (RCV) is a voting method in which voters rank candidates according to their preference and ballots are processed in rounds. The candidate in the last place is eliminated during each round and the voters' second choices get their votes. The process is continued until a candidate wins a simple majority (50 percent plus one) of the vote.
As of 2020, one state—Maine—used ranked-choice voting for some state and federal elections.
How ranked-choice voting works
Broadly speaking, the ranked-choice voting process (sometimes referred to as instant runoff voting) unfolds as follows:
- Voters rank the candidates for a given office by preference on their ballots.
- If a candidate wins an outright majority of first-preference votes (i.e., 50 percent plus one), he or she will be declared the winner.
- If, on the other hand, no candidates win an outright majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated.
- All first-preference votes for the failed candidate are eliminated, lifting the second-preference choices indicated on those ballots.
- A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won an outright majority of the adjusted voters.
- The process is repeated until a candidate wins a majority of votes cast.
Maine Question 5 (2016)
On November 8, 2016, voters approved a ballot initiative—Maine Question 5—to establish a first-in-the-nation statewide system of ranked-choice voting. Voters approved the initiative 52.12 to 47.88 percent. Support for the initiative was stronger in southern coastal Maine, whereas the counties along the state's northern border with Canada voted against the measure.
Question 5 defined ranked-choice voting as "the method of casting and tabulating votes in which voters rank candidates in order of preference, tabulation proceeds in sequential rounds in which last-place candidates are defeated and the candidate with the most votes in the final round is elected."[23]
New York City Ballot Question 1 (2019)
New York City voters approved Ballot Question 1 in 2019, making New York City the most populous jurisdiction in the U.S. to approve the use of the ranked-choice voting election method. Question 1 provides for ranked-choice voting in primary and special elections for mayor, public advocate, comptroller, borough president, and city council members. It allows voters to rank in order of preference up to five candidates, including a write-in candidate. Before the measure, the city’s charter provided for plurality voting, also known as first-past-the-post, and run-off elections, depending on the office and type of election.
Election policy on the ballot in 2020
In 2020, voters in 14 states voted on 18 ballot measures addressing election-related policies. One of the measures addressed campaign finance, one were related to election dates, five addressed election systems, three addressed redistricting, five addressed suffrage, and three addressed term limits.
Click Show to read details about the election-related measures on statewide ballots in 2020.
Election-related policy ballot measures in 2020 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Campaign finance
Election dates
Election systems
Redistricting
Suffrage
Term limits and term lengths
|
Local ranked choice voting measures in 2020
Voters in five cities in California, Colorado, and Minnesota voted on measures to establish ranked choice voting for certain municipal elections:
Local ranked choice voting measures, 2020 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
State | Measure | Offices | Outcome | |||
California | Albany, California, Measure BB, Ranked Choice Voting Ordinance (November 2020) | City council and board of education | ||||
California | Eureka, California, Measure C, Ranked Choice Voting Charter Amendment (November 2020) | Mayor and city council | ||||
Colorado | Boulder, Colorado, Measure 2E, Ranked Choice Voting for Mayor Charter Amendment (November 2020) | Mayor | ||||
Minnesota | Bloomington, Minnesota, Question 3, Ranked Choice Voting Charter Amendment (November 2020) | Mayor and city council | ||||
Minnesota | Minnetonka, Minnesota, Question 1, Ranked Choice Voting Charter Amendment (November 2020) | Mayor and city council |
In March 2020, voters in Portland, Maine, approved a local ranked choice voting measure.[36]
Path to the ballot
Process in Alaska
In Alaska, the number of signatures required for an indirect initiated state statute is equal to 10 percent of the votes cast in the preceding gubernatorial election. Alaska also has a signature distribution requirement, which requires that signatures equal to 7 percent of the vote in the last general election must be collected in each of three-fourths of the 40 state House districts. Petitions are allowed to circulate for 365 days from the date the lieutenant governor issues petition booklets to be distributed for signature gathering. Signatures must be submitted 365 days after the lieutenant governor issued petition booklets to be distributed for signature gathering or before the legislative session begins, whichever comes first.
The requirements to get an indirectly initiated state statute certified for the 2020 ballot:
- Signatures: 28,501 valid signatures were required.
- Deadline: The deadline to submit signatures was 365 days after the lieutenant governor issued petition booklets to be distributed for signature gathering or before the legislative session began on January 21, 2020, whichever comes first.
In Alaska, when enough signatures are verified for an initiative, the initiative is not certified for the ballot until after "a legislative session has convened and adjourned." This gives the Legislature a timeframe to consider the proposal or similar legislation. The initiative is void when “an act of the legislature that is substantially the same as the proposed law was enacted after the petition had been filed, and before the date of the election," according to state law.[37] Otherwise, the initiative is certified to appear on the ballot for the first statewide election 120 days after the legislature's adjournment.
Stages of this initiative
The campaign Alaskans for Better Elections filed the ballot initiative (Petition 19AKBE) with the lieutenant governor on July 3, 2019.[38] Attorney General Kevin Clarkson (R) submitted an opinion to the lieutenant governor recommending that he reject the proposal because the proposal contained three separate issues and therefore violated the single-subject rule. Clarkson said, "The single-subject rule serves an important constitutional purpose in the initiative context by protecting voters’ ability to have their voices heard. But 19AKBE, if certified, would force voters into an all or nothing approach on multiple important policy choices, all of which implicate their fundamental constitutional rights in different ways."[39] On August 30, Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer (R) rejected the proposal.[40]
Alaskans for Better Elections challenged the lieutenant governor's decision before the Alaska Superior Court in Alaskans for Better Elections v. Meyer. On October 28, 2019, Judge Yvonne Lamoureux ruled that the ballot initiative was designed as a single subject—election reform—and could be certified to collect signatures. Lt. Gov. Meyer appealed the decision to the Alaska Supreme Court.
On January 9, 2020, Alaskans for Better Elections filed 41,068 signatures for the ballot initiative.[41] At least 28,501 (69.4 percent) of the submitted signatures need to be valid. Jason Grenn, co-chair of Alaskans for Better Elections, said, "We do have signatures from every (state House) district, all 40 districts. We feel pretty confident that we’re set up."[42] On March 9, Lt. Gov. Meyer announced that 36,006 signatures were verified.[43]
The Alaska State Legislature had the option to approve the proposal or equivalent legislation before the end of this year's legislative session, which adjourned on May 20, 2020. Since neither the initiative nor equivalent legislation was approved, the proposal was set to appear on the ballot for the general election on November 3, 2020.
Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired Advanced Micro Targeting to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $236,250.00 was spent to collect the 28,501 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $8.29.
Alaskans for Better Elections v. Meyer
Lawsuit overview | |
Issue: Was Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative based on the single-subject rule incorrect as a matter of law? | |
Court: Alaska Supreme Court (appealed from the Alaska Superior Court) | |
Ruling: The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling, deciding that the ballot initiative was designed as a single subject—election reform. | |
Plaintiff(s): Alaskans for Better Elections | Defendant(s): Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer and Division of Elections |
Plaintiff argument: Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative "unlawfully denied Alaskans for Better Elections and the citizens of Alaska the opportunity to exercise their constitutional initiative rights by refusing to certify 19AKBE." | Defendant argument: Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative was correct because the ballot initiative contains three subjects and therefore violates the state's single-subject rule. |
Source: Alaska Superior Court
Alaska Superior Court
On September 5, 2019, Alaskans for Better Elections filed a legal challenge to Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative based on the single-subject rule. The legal challenge was filed in the Alaska Superior Court. "By refusing to certify (the measure), the lieutenant governor has denied the citizens of Alaska the opportunity to lawfully exercise their right to the ballot initiative guaranteed by Article XI of the Alaska Constitution," read the complaint.[44]
Assistant Attorneys General Margaret Paton-Walsh and Cori Mills argued on behalf of Lt. Gov. Meyer, stating that the ballot initiative violated the single-subject rule and that voters would need to vote on each subject as an independent ballot measure.[45]
On October 28, 2019, Judge Yvonne Lamoureux ruled that the ballot initiative was designed as a single subject—election reform. Lamoureux wrote, "Because the primary election, general election, campaign finance, and all other provisions of the proposed initiative clearly relate to the general subject of election reform, there is no violation of the single-subject rule." Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer and the Division of Elections were ordered to approve the proposal for signature gathering.[46]
Alaska Supreme Court
Defendants (Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer and Division of Elections) appealed Judge Lamoureux's ruling to the Alaska Supreme Court.[47] Justices heard arguments on February 19, 2020.
Assistant Attorney General Laura Fox, representing the defendants, asked the state Supreme Court to divide the citizen-initiated measure into multiple ballot questions.[48] Fox said, "We're not saying these kinds of initiatives can't be put on the ballot. It's just that there's no reason, really, that they have to be combined together and bundled together in the same initiative."
Scott Kendall, representing Alaskans for Better Elections, compared the ballot initiative's provisions to Measure 2 (2014), which legalized marijuana in Alaska. Kendall said, "Having to do it on marijuana, for example, through six ballot measures. What if retail sales were approved, but commercial production was not approved? What if a tax was approved, but retail sales wasn't? The system would collapse into itself, and these three pieces are similarly interdependent."[49]
On June 12, 2020, the Alaska Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision, ruling that the ballot initiative did not violate the single-subject rule. Justice Daniel Winfree wrote, "This initiative’s provisions are properly classified under ‘election reform’ as a matter of both logic and common sense. They all relate to the elections process and share the common thread of reforming current election laws. We can logically conclude that the various initiative provisions substantively change (or reform) the state’s elections."[50]
How to cast a vote
- See also: Voting in Alaska
Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in California.
How to cast a vote in Alaska | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Poll timesIn Alaska, all polling places are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Alaska Time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote. Alaska is divided between the Alaska time zone and the Hawaii-Aleutian time zone.[51][52] Registration
To register to vote in Alaska, each applicant must be a citizen of the United States, a resident of Alaska, and at least 18 years of age or within 90 days of his or her 18th birthday. An individual convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude may not register to vote until his or her voting rights have been restored. If registered to vote in another state, applicants must be willing to cancel that registration in order to vote in Alaska. To vote in Alaska, registered voters must be at least 18 years old and have been a resident of the state and election district for at least 30 days.[53] Prospective voters can register online, with a paper form, or in person at a Division of Elections Office or a voter registration agency.[54] The deadline to register is 30 days before an election.[55] If submitting an application form by mail, fax, or email, the applicant must provide one of the following forms of identification either with his or her application or when voting for the first time:[55]
Automatic registrationAlaska automatically registers eligible individuals to vote when they apply for a Permanent Fund Dividend.[56] Online registration
Alaska has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website. Same-day registrationAlaska allows same-day voter registration in presidential election years, but voters who do so can vote only for the offices of president and vice president.[57] Residency requirementsAlaska law requires 30 days of residency in the state and election district before a person may vote.[58] Verification of citizenshipAlaska does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. Verifying your registrationThe site My Voter Registration, run by the Alaska Department of Elections, allows residents to check their voter registration status online. Voter ID requirementsAlaska requires voters to present non-photo identification while voting.[59][60] The following were accepted forms of identification as of March 2023. Click here for the Alaska Division of Elections' page on accepted ID to ensure you have the most current information.
|
See also
External links
Information
Support
- Alaskans for Better Elections
- Alaskans for Better Elections Facebook
- Alaskans for Better Elections Twitter
Opposition
Footnotes
- ↑ Alaska Superior Court, "Kohlhaas v. Alaska," December 1, 2020
- ↑ Alaska Superior Court, "Kohlhaas v. Alaska," July 29, 2021
- ↑ Yahoo, "Alaska Supreme Court will decide legality of new ranked-choice voting system ahead of 2022 election," October 26, 2021
- ↑ ADN, "Alaska Supreme Court upholds elections ballot measure, state will use ranked-choice voting," accessed January 20, 2022
- ↑ Alaska Supreme Court, "Kohlhaas v. Alaska," October 21, 2022
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 US News, "Lawsuit Challenges Alaska Campaign Disclosure Rules," April 7, 2022
- ↑ U.S. News & World Report, "Judge Refuses to Block Alaska Campaign Disclosure Rules," July 14, 2022
- ↑ 8.00 8.01 8.02 8.03 8.04 8.05 8.06 8.07 8.08 8.09 8.10 8.11 8.12 8.13 8.14 8.15 Alaska Division of Elections, "Alaska's Better Elections Initiative," accessed January 6, 2020
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 APOC, "Online Reports," accessed July 7, 2020
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 Alaskans for Better Elections, "Homepage," accessed November 12, 2019
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 Anchorage Daily News, "New ballot initiative seeks to change state elections," July 4, 2019
- ↑ Must Read Alaska, "Stopping the jungle primary: Group emerges for the fight against Ballot Measure 2," August 28, 2020
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 Alaska Division of Elections, "Ballot Summary," accessed May 29, 2020
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Alaska Public Offices Commission, "Alaskans for Better Elections Third Quartly Report 2019," October 10, 2019
- ↑ Unite America, "Alaskans for Better Elections," accessed November 12, 2019
- ↑ Alaska Libertarian Party, "House State Affairs Committee," June 30, 2020
- ↑ Alaska Department of Elections, "Official Election Pamphlet," accessed October 6, 2020
- ↑ Alaska Public Offices Commission, "Defend Alaska Elections," accessed September 1, 2020
- ↑ Must Read Alaska, "Stopping the jungle primary: Group emerges for the fight against Ballot Measure 2," August 28, 2020
- ↑ Alaska Department of Elections, "Official Election Pamphlet," accessed October 6, 2020
- ↑ A 60% supermajority vote was needed to pass the amendment.
- ↑ League of Women Voters of Maine, "Citizen Referendum on Ranked Choice Voting," accessed November 13, 2014
- ↑ Alaska Division of Elections, "Alaska's Better Elections Initiative," accessed January 6, 2020
- ↑ Colorado General Assembly, "Senate Bill 42 (2019)," accessed September 5, 2019
- ↑ Florida Department of Elections, "Initiative 19-07," accessed March 14, 2019
- ↑ Massachusetts Attorney General, "Initiative 19-10: Initiative Petition for a Law to Implement Ranked-Choice Voting in Elections," accessed August 7, 2019
- ↑ Mississippi State Legislature, "House Concurrent Resolution 47," accessed June 30, 2020
- ↑ Missouri Legislature, "SJR 38 Full Text," accessed February 10, 2020
- ↑ New Jersey State Legislature, "Assembly Concurrent Resolution 188," accessed July 31, 2020
- ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "2020 Census Operational Adjustments Due to COVID-19," accessed August 10, 2020
- ↑ Virginia General Assembly, "Senate Bill 236," accessed March 5, 2020
- ↑ Arkansas Legislature, "SJR 15 full text," accessed March 28, 2019
- ↑ Kentucky Legislature, "House Bill 405 Text," accessed March 11, 2020
- ↑ Missouri State Senate, "SJR 14," accessed April 17, 2019
- ↑ Portland Press Herald, "Portland overwhelmingly approves expansion of ranked-choice voting," March 3, 2020
- ↑ Alaska Department of Elections, "Public Information Packet on Initiatives," accessed January 24, 2024
- ↑ Anchorage Daily News, "New ballot initiative seeks to change state elections," accessed July 8, 2019
- ↑ KTUU, "State denies election reform initiative; backers say appeal is likely," accessed September 3, 2019
- ↑ Anchorage Daily News, "Attorney general and lieutenant governor reject ranked-choice ballot measure," August 30, 2019
- ↑ Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, "Alaska group pushing for ranked voting to turn in signatures Thursday," January 8, 2020
- ↑ Anchorage Daily News, "Supporters of elections overhaul turn in signatures, moving measure closer to statewide vote," January 9, 2020
- ↑ Alaska Department of Elections, "Letter to Sponsor on Signature Verification," March 9, 2020
- ↑ Anchorage Daily News, "Supporters of election-reform ballot measure appeal rejection to courts," September 9, 2019
- ↑ Must Read Alaska, "‘Log-rolling’ at issue with ‘Better Elections’ ballot item," October 21, 2019
- ↑ Alaska Superior Court, "Alaskans for Better Elections v. Meyer," October 28, 2019
- ↑ Alaska Public Media, "Judge approves signature gathering for initiative that would change state elections," October 28, 2019
- ↑ Anchorage Daily News, "State challenges ballot measure that would install ranked-choice voting statewide," February 19, 2020
- ↑ KTUU, "State maintains challenge to ranked-choice voting ballot measure in Alaska Supreme Court hearing," February 20, 2020
- ↑ Alaska Public Media, "Alaska Supreme Court unanimously rejects attorney general’s bid to quash election reform initiative," June 12, 2020
- ↑ Alaska Division of Elections, "Polling Place Hours," accessed March 1, 2023
- ↑ Find Law, "Alaska Statutes Title 15. Elections 15.15.320. Voters in line when polls close," accessed March 1, 2023
- ↑ Alaska Division of Elections, "Who Can Register And Who Can Vote?" accessed March 1, 2023
- ↑ Alaska Division of Elections, "Register to Vote or Update Your Voter Registration," accessed March 1, 2023
- ↑ 55.0 55.1 Alaska Division of Elections, "State of Alaska Voter Registration Application," accessed March 1, 2023
- ↑ Alaska Department of Revenue, “Automatic voter registration,” accessed March 1, 2023
- ↑ Alaska Division of Elections, "Voting in a Presidential Election," accessed March 1, 2023
- ↑ Alaska Department of Revenue, “Automatic voter registration,” accessed March 1, 2023
- ↑ Alaska State Legislature, "Alaska Statutes 2018 Sec. 15.15.225 Voter identification at polls," accessed March 1, 2023
- ↑ 60.0 60.1 Alaska Division of Elections, "Voting at the Polling Place Election Day," accessed March 1, 2023
State of Alaska Juneau (capital) | |
---|---|
Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |