The Alaska Supreme Court has upheld the inclusion of federal prisoner Eric Hafner on the 2024 general election ballot for US House of Representatives, affirming a lower court ruling that the state Division of Elections acted lawfully in placing him as a replacement candidate under Alaska’s bizarre ranked-choice voting system.
In a 4-1 decision issued Friday, the court ruled that state law permits the Division to replace multiple candidates who withdraw from the general election ballot, provided the replacements come from the next-highest vote-getters in the primary. The decision clarifies the interpretation of Alaska Statute 15.25.100(c), which was amended as part of Ballot Measure 2 in 2020; that ballot measure creased the ranked-choice voting for general elections and jungle (no-party) primaries.
The Democrats were livid when two of the top four candidates in the August 2024 open primary — Republicans Nancy Dahlstrom and Matthew Salisbury — withdrew their candidacies. That moved AIP candidate John Wayne Howe, who finished fifth, and Eric Hafner, who finished sixth, to the general election ballot alongside then-incumbent Rep. Mary Peltola and Republican Nick Begich.
The Alaska Democratic Party and Democrat Anita Thorne sued to block Hafner’s inclusion, arguing that the law only allows one replacement — the fifth-place finisher. The party also objected to Hafner’s presence on the ballot because he is serving a federal prison sentence out of state and may not be released until 2036.
The Alaska Republican Party intervened in the case in support of the Division’s decision.
The Supreme Court, echoing the findings of Anchorage Superior Court Judge Ian Wheeles, ruled that the statute is ambiguous but must be interpreted in a way that fulfills the intent of Ballot Measure 2, namely, to ensure voters have four choices on the general election ballot whenever possible.
“Both interpretations of the statute are reasonable,” the majority opinion stated, “but the purpose and structure of Ballot Measure 2 favor an interpretation that ensures four candidates appear on the general election ballot.” The court also noted that Alaska precedent leans toward resolving ambiguities in favor of broader ballot access for voters.
Justice Susan Carney dissented, writing that the law’s plain language refers only to the fifth-place finisher as a permissible replacement and does not authorize a sixth-place candidate to be elevated. She criticized the majority for reading additional meaning into what she saw as unambiguous statutory text.
Democrats had also argued that Hafner’s incarceration made him ineligible for office, but the court noted that constitutional requirements regarding inhabitancy apply only upon election and not at the time of candidacy.
Here’s the entire decision and dissent:
This indeed is bizarre. If he won they would have to invalidate him and try again. This system of rank choice is nutze. (Deutsch for nuts)
And ‘ficked’ (also Deutsch word)
Notice how the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed a ruling by a conservative judge in a decision supported by the Alaska Republican Party.
This should give pause to all the yappers and whiners on this blog who routinely carp about liberal judges and skewed outcomes based on political considerations.
This decision correctly applied law as written.
Joe, no reminder needed. It only affirms that as long as we have RCV, some criminal candidates are actually better than the Democrats preferred alternatives……..who are hard core anti-MAGA, America-hating, loonies with TDS.
Jeepers Joe,
Trying to stockpile political points for your existing and future court cases?
You support the Alaska judiciary’s obliteration of constitutional protections of the Alaska Grand Jury over the years and constitutional/due process rights in the cases of Thomas Jack, Jr., and AK Mom? Perhaps you blame conservatives for those failings?
Nothing related to Jack case in this issue.
Joe, as you so often are, you are highly disingenuous in this comment.
One rare exception, in a LONG string of pro-leftist, pro-establishment rulings, means exactly nothing.
Only a lawyer would be so bold, so dishonest and so mendacious as to try to claim the nonsense that you so often do here.
Ah yes, the ever irrational snark from anonymous Jeffy, who substitutes mindless ad hominem attacks for genuine analysis.
Predictable and tedious, that’s Jeffy.
The arrogant lawyer bristles at being called out on his mendacity once again.
You treat it like a game of chance, Joe. Every now and then the dice will roll double sixes, or the dealt cards will yield four aces or a royal flush. Those are rare exceptions. Your assertions are little more than references to a game of chance outcome. So, by pointing out the rare exception and treating it like a routine event, and then casting aspertions on those who understand the difference between exception and routine, is disingenuous on its face. And I’m being kind by telling it this way.
Read the opinion and please tell us where you disagree. And, why.
It’s not a game of chance.
Yap Yap Yap Democrats will never win without cheating, lying and making sure normal people get confused on how RCV works. You only have to pick one and it counts.
Let the inmates run for office as long as they go Democrat. This really creates havoc for RCV.