The Alaska Democratic Party has appealed the decision by Superior Court Judge Ian Wheeles that allows Democrat felon Eric Hafner to remain on the ballot for the Alaska congressional race. Hafner’s name will show up for voters along with Rep. Mary Peltola, Nick Begich and John Wayne Howe for the ranked-choice voting in the congressional contest.
The Alaska Supreme Court will hear the case on an expedited basis, since the printing of the ballots for November is already under way and any delay in overturning of the lower court decision may impact the elections in ways that have never been seen in Alaska.
The appeal will be heard Thursday at 10:15 a.m. and will be live-streamed on ktoo.org/gavel.
Judge Wheeles’ decision says that the Democrats have 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, and 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.
“Plaintiffs’ complaint is not about the action or status of Hafner or the action or determination of the Defendants, but with the amendments of Ballot Measure 2 itself,” Wheeles wrote. “Plaintiffs complain that the statutes allow a candidate, such as Hafner, to unilaterally choose his party affiliation and declare it on the ballot. The court is applying that law to the facts and finds that Hafner is acting within his legal right to declare his registered voter affiliation and have it listed on the ballot. The court is likewise applying that law to the facts and finds that the Division is properly printing ballots as such. Plaintiffs allege no violation of law by Defendants or Hafner and no resulting harm. As a final point, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ case amounts to a veiled or improperly pled election contest. Plaintiffs dispute this characterization. The court made the analogy that one’s failure to plan does not constitute another’s emergency. The time sensitivity of this motion is inescapable. Equally inescapable is the reality that Plaintiffs could have pursued this relief at any time after Hafner filed his declaration of candidacy in late May.”
The Alaska Republican Party weighed in on the appeal:
“The Superior Court’s ruling in the case of Alaska Democratic Party v. State of Alaska, Division of Elections was a victory for all Alaskans. Superior Court Judge Ian Wheeles denied the motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
In short, the court got it right, and clearly agreed with the Alaska Republican Party – if the courts had found for the plaintiffs in this case, the irreparable harm would have been to Alaskans and our electoral process, not to the Alaska Democratic Party. Ultimately, the rights of the Alaskan voters prevailed,” said Carmela Warfield, Alaska Republican Party chairwoman.
“In their argument, the Alaska Democratic Party argued that the second Democrat on the ballot could impact the election by takin votes away from their preferred candidate. This is the direct result of the ranked choice voting scheme that is currently the law in Alaska. The Alaska Democratic Party seems just as frustrated as so many other Alaskans are with this ill-conceived law. They are so frustrated that they have appealed the court’s ruling to the Alaska Supreme Court, and the Alaska Republican Party will be right there with the people of Alaska,” Warfield said.
“All Alaskans — regardless of party affiliation – have the opportunity this November to prevent this type of nonsense from ever happening again by returning to a system of fair elections that all Alaskans can be proud of,” Warfield said.
Read the judge’s decision for yourself here:
Highly unlikely the Supremes will reverse Judge Wheeles, primarily because the lower court judge examined the rule of law as it pertains to the construct of RCV. Everything was done according to the way the Democrats designed it. You don’t change the design of a constructed building after it’s completed. Democrats are slow learners.
Welcome to Congress, Nick Begich III.
defending “democracy” again.