Breaking: Democracy wins, Democrats lose as Alaska Supreme Court allows convict to remain on ballot

By
Suzanne Downing
-
60
Supreme Court of Alaska hears the case brought by the Alaska Democratic Party to disenfranchise a Democrat candidate from being included on the November ballot.

The Alaska Supreme Court on Thursday heard the appeal of the Alaska Democratic Party, which was trying to kick a Democrat off of the ballot in the Alaska congressional race so Rep. Mary Peltola, the party’s favored Democrat, could have a better chance at winning reelection.

In the end, the Democrats were denied their attempt to game the ranked-choice voting system. All the justices but one voted to uphold the judgment of Superior Court Judge Ian Wheeles, who had said the Democrats were essentially trying to change the rules and were too little, too late to challenge the candidacy of Eric Hafner.

Currently, Hafner, Peltola, and Republican Nick Begich and Alaskan Independence Party John Wayne Howe are on the November ballot, which is now being printed for the Nov. 5 election.

The Democrats raise several points about Democrat Eric Hafner, and why he should be kicked off the ballot so voters would not be confused by having two Democrats to choose from.

Democrats complained that Hafner is serving time in federal prison and therefore would not be able to serve in Congress. Yet the Constitution makes no law against felons running for federal office. That’s possibly because such a law would encourage opposing parties to arrest candidates — as the Democrats have done with Donald Trump — in order to make them unqualified to serve.

Superior Court Judge Wheeles’ decision said the Democrats had made up all kinds of imaginary possibilities for the future that they have no way of knowing or proving, and that Eric Hafner is within his rights to file as a candidate. The Division of Elections made no error of judgment in allowing him to take the fourth slot on the ballot, since two previous candidates had dropped out after the primary.

Wheeles said that “one’s failure to plan does not constitute another’s emergency,” of the Democrats and their challenge of Eric Hafner’s name on the ballot. It’s their own fault they didn’t challenge Hafner’s qualifications in the legal time allowed, which is 10 days after the closure of the candidate filing period.

Only Supreme Court Justice Susan Carney dissented from the decision of the Supreme Court, saying she would have reversed Judge Wheeles’ decision which can be read here:

Order denying temp restraining order and preliminary injunctionDownload

The printing and testing for accuracy of the November ballot is already underway at the Division of Elections. The ballots for overseas military voters must be put in the mail this month.

The Supreme Court has only announced its decision and is expected to explain its reasoning at a later time.

The Alaska Republican Party statement came out at about 9 p.m. on Thursday. Carmela Warfield, chairwoman of the Alaska Republican Party, called it a great day for Alaska and the rule of law.

“The courts agreed with the Alaska Republican Party and did not allow the Alaska Democratic Party to game the election to their benefit,” Warfield said.

“But what the current law allows is that we have an incarcerated, out-of-state Democrat on the General Election ballot in Alaska because of the confusing, ill-conceived ranked choice voting scheme that is currently the law in our state, whether we like it or not. And the Alaska Democratic Party sure seemed to like ranked choice voting util they decided they didn’t like it. Our traditional, straight-forward voting process would have addressed this second Democrat on the ballot and he would have been removed through his party’s primary,” Warfield said.

“We Alaskans have the opportunity in November to make sure this does not happen again in our great state, to turn away from outside influences and do what’s best for Alaska, by returning to a system of fair elections that all Alaskans — regardless of party affiliation — can be proud of,” she said.

This story will be updated.

Desperate Democrats appeal to Supreme Court to kick a disfavored Democrat off of November ballot

60 COMMENTS

  2. In 2016 when Hafner ran for Congress in the Hawaiian primary he did so as a long shot Republican, recieving 44% of the vote, and lost to the candidate who lost to Tusli Gabbard. This was before he became a Democrat, ran in numerous elections around the country and was subsequently locked up for following his extremist political ideology of threatening those he disagrees with.

    Given our rank voting method and how the Democrats have been so overwhelming in support of it, I feel compelled to rank Mr. Hafner. Since our current Democratic Congressional representative isn’t doing a good job representing Alaska or Alaskans I will rank him above Representative Peltola, who won’t receive a rank on my ballot since she doesn’t deserve to be ranked.

    I can only hope this will be the last rank vote I have to make.

  4. The real story is just how weak d they think Mary is that a prisoner in another state could syphon votes from her?

    • Almost impossible for Hafner to spoil the election for Peltola and he certainly can’t siphon dollar support or volunteers. Their concern apparently has to do with the general problem that any candidates’s success at winning a race depends on the very ignorant and dumb voter only voting for one candidate because they see that D or R next to the name, but then won’t rank any other candidates.

  6. This is going to be interesting to see how this plays out. The democrats could have easily spoken up when this felon first filed his intentions, but did they? No. So, why are they now going helter-skelter after he made it to the ballot?

  12. He’s the perfect Democrat. In jail, living off the government, and will do nothing but cause turmoil when elected. Just too bad he’s not out, he could go to airports and steal women’s luggage.

  13. I don’t think it serves our system just because it happened to the other side. Plainly, it’s a loophole that should’ve been knotted.

  14. Did anyone who has repeatedly complained and whined in the past about how judges and the courts are full of ultra liberal individuals think about or comment on the an outcome in this case?
    The justices did their job, just like the trial judge by following and applying the law, as written.

    • Joe, I agree with your assessment above, that said, I find it humorous how the Democrats are learning a hard lesson, which is “no one is above the law”.

      Credit our Founders and the Beautiful Constitution that they drafted for us. Our Founding Fathers knew that scoundrels would press criminal charges against political opponents in an attempt to thwart the will of the people, hence lack of qualification for office beyond age. The irony of it all!

      Hey, Aren’t there a bunch of Hafners living down in your neck of the woods? Nice folks as I recall, yeah the felon gets my vote over Mary, Mary quite Constitutional Contrary!

  15. So much irony. That the dems would fight so hard for this voting system and insist on the simplify of it and the fairness of it. Who knew the tables could turn so quickly. A little bit of poetic justice.

  17. Tee-hee! Love that Eric Hafner did this, but the scary thing is that he could just as well have run as a Republican.

  18. It’s refreshing to see democrats rail against the ‘election process’ and be given a civics lesson on how the law must be applied by the Supreme Court. They are used to the law being overlooked or ‘interpreted’ on how they see things. Create a kerfuffle and watch the appeasement effort get into high gear. If they felt that Hafner’s candidacy posed no issue to their candidate they would be silent. Nice to see the ‘party of chaos’ take a hit for once.

  19. Democrats are reaping what the sow. I think it is hilarious that they are all in for RCV but now they have been gamed at their own system are crying foul. So Sad too Bad.

    • Unfortunately, the Yes on 2 camp has under $70K, while the NoNo’s have over $4m in outside funds: but it’s not “dark money.” THAT is another scourge to eliminate: No foreign (outside AK) $$ for campaigns in AK so those jerks stop buying our elections. It’s bothered me for 46 years I’ve been old enough to vote. Grrrrrr.

      Send ‘our side’ what you can: ‘https://yeson2ak.com/donate/

  21. Democrats worked so hard and spent so much “dark” money to saddle AK with RCV.

    Now that it is working against them, they whine and whinge like stuck pigs. There is something sweet about this bit of kharma kicking in!

    • Dark money is hard at work on their campaign once again. It may work too. So deceitful. The general public is so stupid when it comes to RCV because they don’t follow politics enough to comprehend the more obscure tricks and see what a parlor trick it is. Just like they didn’t know that the first Measure 2 was completely funded and spearheaded by out of state dark people.

      Democrats in every red state believe it would be a more fair and “democratic” process if the Chicago Bears fans got a say in who the Green Bay Packers play for a quarterback against them, but not the other way around as long as they are a Bears fan.

      They think kharma is a “threat to democracy”.

  22. Had the Alaska Supremes held this opinion in 2014, Bill Walker would have never been elected Governor and Byron Mallott would have continued abusing women in private. Cheers –

    • agimarc’s opinion about opinions makes no sense at all.
      Try using a little logic and reason in your postings agimarc.

        • So, you think applying the Hafner decision that was about implementing RCV to the election where Walker won under the old system predating RCV somehow would have nailed it.
          Well, so much for logic and rational analysis.
          I suppose it’s no wonder we wind up with goofballs as elected officials in some instances. The represent the public.
          We really do get what we deserve in this little country cperiment In democratic self-government in the Lost Frontier.

          • C’mon, Joe. It’s not about getting RCV aligned perfectly with Walker’s election. The fact that Agimark lumped RCV, Bill Walker, and a pedophile all into one category is all that matters. Agimark got exactly what he set out to do: get you all riled up about nothing 🤣

            • Not riled up in the least.
              Get with the logic flow here Bucko or maybe check to see if your meds are working, cuz your “thoughts” are misfiring.

  23. “…he should be kicked off the ballot so voters would not be confused by having two Democrats to choose from.”
    .
    Pretty much says it all right there.

    • It was okay with them when two Republicans were on the ballot but not so with two Democrats. They obviously don’t subscribe to the fact that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

  24. What? We all thought that Democrats loved criminals and never-do-wells as their shining examples of good citizenship, including hordes of chaos-creating illegal aliens. Hafner is one of their own. Democrats must live up to their standards by voting for Hafner.

  26. Having the state supreme court get the credit might deserve a second look. Perhaps all this is an answer to prayer. God indeed has a sense of humor, and the joke has gone right over the heads of most of us. Oh, and I will bet that many rank-and-file Democrats are going to vote to repeal RCV now!

    And, if we really, REALLY are devoted to the “rule of law”, RCV had three items on it in 2020, in utter defiance of the, um, state constitution. If we had a Governor who really obeyed his oath, he would have said, “Thank you for your opinion, judiciary, but I have an oath too, and a brain, and enforcement powers. You only have one of those, the first one. I will order the Div of Elections to NOT implement RCV. It is unconstitutional.”

    Ah, but Dunleavy knew that he would have then been — “Eastmanized”.

Comments are closed.