Breaking: Judge orders ‘stay’ on recall petition until Supremes decide validity


Superior Court Judge Eric Aarseth today reversed his original ruling from Jan. 10, and now says the Division of Elections shall not issue petition booklets for the Recall Dunleavy Committee by Feb. 10.

And in fact, shall not issue those booklets until the Supreme Court has decided the case.

The Recall Dunleavy Committee is attempting to remove Gov. Mike Dunleavy via a special election. They must collect over 70,000 signatures on an official recall petition, but that momentum is now paused.

“This matter is stayed pending resolution of this case in the Alaska Supreme Court,” Judge Aarseth wrote.

The decision is the first defeat for the Recall Dunleavy Committee since they started their campaign to recall Gov. Mike Dunleavy nearly a year ago. It makes it harder for the committee to get the question on a special election ballot.

The request for a stay was thought to be procedural, since the judge had already verbally stated he would not grant a stay. But during court proceedings on Jan. 10, Stand Tall With Mike attorney Brewster Jamieson asked that they be able to request a say in writing, anyway. A written request for a stay would have allowed Jamieson to also appeal that denial to the Supreme Court.

Judge Aarseth begrudgingly allowed them to put the request in writing, even though he had just stated what his ruling was.

Evidently, the legal team for Dunleavy was persuasive in their motion, as Aarseth reversed his ruling today.


  1. This is the right move by the court…taking the right to vote from the people should not be some thing done by a hand full of disgruntled people that dis agreed with the results of an election.

  2. Awesome news. It’s comforting to know that the virus currently infesting the liberals his not infiltrated this branch. I’m sorry they are such spoiled sports and sore losers. That’s not the American way.

  3. I always liked literary pleadings and wit, sarcasm, and the like in legal documents. As I got older, that sort of stuff became less and less relevant as law school turned into trade school and so many people in advocacy were cultural and historical illiterates. What good is a literary, historical, or Biblical allusion if nobody reading it has read what you’re alluding to? What good is sarcasm if it sails right over the heads of those reading it. So, I offer this from Gov. Dunleavy’s request for a stay of the Superior Court ruling on the recall petition:

    “Presumably, RDC wishes the greatest number of voters to participate
    in a recall election and seeks to submit its recall to voters at a regularly scheduled election.”

    The very last thing the Recall Dunleavy Committee wants is for the “… greatest number of voters to participate …” They want a special election so they can work their union and interest group lists to get out their vote and force the people who oppose recall to get their voters to the polls at retail through the media. I like that little jab at the lawfare campaign.

  4. As someone who is all spun up with the liberal virus (huge case of the free-thinking itchy-scratchies over here — someone please get me some elephant ointment), I must comment on Greg Forkner’s decree that a certain behavior, which is noteworthy in its legality in America and facilitation by Americans, is not American. Despite my doting appreciation of Greg’s laser focus, I should share the observation… no, the truth, that legal activity in America is definitively, well, American. And so far everything the recall group has done is legal, in America, and by the virtue of my valid argument, American. I will give to you, Mr. Forkner, that your distaste of a thing is totally legitimate on its face, and I encourage you to develop the self confidence to stand tall (like Mike!) and proclaim your disdain without the feeble attempt to bandwagon your frustration into American (because Greg thinks so) or not American (also because Greg thinks so) categories. Be confident Greg. Your opinion counts on its own without those broad fallacious strokes.

  5. Wow, way for a liberal to try to twist my words. What I said was not American was being a poor sport and a poor loser. We are better than that. Yes poor losers used the legal system to try to change the election that’s what they do. They tried to undo what the majority voted for. Confidence is something that I am not lacking in. I’m old enough to see this BS for what it is and also mature enough to see you for what you are.

  6. This would be similar to me making a blanket statement like I can’t wait till a Democrat gets in office so that we can recall or impeach him or her. See how ludicrous that sounds, yet that’s what you’re defending.

    • Greg, I’m glad you’re thinking about what you wrote. My comment was verbose and annoying, and really just poking fun at you for what to me read as total disregard for the notion that Democrats may believe there is a legitimate justification for a recall; instead, you discount their motivation by blaming their actions on some virus, and describe them as spoil sports and sore losers. No one deserves that sort of basic disregard any more than you deserve to be accused of lacking confidence. Each of us deserves individual consideration of our convictions, or none of us does.

      • The virus was metaphoricaly speaking. Like a germ currently infecting the republic. In fact they are poor losers by not wanting to accept a legitimately elected governor. Yes yes I know they’re against the governor wanting to cut funding for state-paid abortions and other baby killing, and the fact that he cut UAA funding because basically they suck and only produce at 8% graduation rate in 4 years, and the fact that they want the state to pay for homeless in Anchorage which is a local problem not a state problem, and let’s not forget the stolen PFD money by Bryce Edgmon and his clooney’s and the whole balanced budget idea which to some seems like a ludicrous idea. So yeah from where I sit anybody who is for all these things that are basically not what a state should be spending its money on is ludicrous and basically a poor sport if they try to overthrow a legitimate election.

    • Yes they do, and our legal processes should not be allowed to be weaponized by a group in order to promote their own agenda. The voters have their say on election day and to undermine that sets a dangerous precedent.

Comments are closed.