An election challenge has been filed with the municipal clerk’s office in Anchorage, raising allegations of voter disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of voters in the recent municipal election held on April 4.
The complaint, filed by citizens on May 4, points out significant issues related to the mailing of ballots and the election announcement postcards to active registered voters.
According to the complaint, it was expected that every active registered voter would receive a ballot and an advance postcard advertising the upcoming election.
However, the complaint asserts that neither of these measures were fully implemented, impacting the ability of thousands voters to participate in the electoral process.
The issues surrounding voter disenfranchisement were brought before the election commission during the public session of the canvass held on April 20. Challenges to elections cannot take place until after the election has been certified.
The election commission board was presented with a 33-page complaint by election observers at the time.
The complaint raises concerns about the failure to send election postcards to approximately 36,143 individuals out of the 235,564 active registered voters in Anchorage, as documented by the municipality.
Preliminary investigations revealed that prior to the start of the mail-in election, only 199,421 voters were mailed an election announcement postcard. However, the municipality subsequently printed and mailed 201,029 ballots.
There is no explanation for the discrepancy between the invitation to take part and the ballots mailed. The election challenge focuses on these discrepancies and questions the decision-making authority for creating the mailing list for election announcement postcards and ballot packages.
Municipal Code 28.40.020C says that the municipal clerk is not obligated to mail ballots to voters without valid addresses or those flagged as undeliverable. Critics argue that the discretion vested in the clerk’s office represents a concentration of power within the administrative state, since the authority is very broad.
The potential implications of this issue are significant, as the exclusion of 36,143 voters could have influenced the outcome of various races and ballot measures in the recent election.
Even if only 30% of those disenfranchised voters had participated, it would still constitute over 12,000 votes, which could have been decisive in assembly seat races, area-wide contests, and the fate of bonds.
The concerns raised in the complaint contend that the municipal ordinance, giving so much power to the Clerk, may violate state statutes pertaining to equal treatment of all voters. The seriousness of the matter has led the group behind the challenge to engage the services of attorney Joe Miller, who will represent them in pursuing a resolution to the discrepancies and potential infringements on voting rights.
The Municipal Clerk’s office has not issued an official response regarding the election challenge at the time of this report but the matter is on the agenda as Item 12a for Tuesday’s regular Assembly meeting.
The Assembly will make a decision about whether to accept the challenge and look into it or dismiss it, and there is no public hearing pertaining to that decision. Because the Assembly has routinely supported the office of the Municipal Clerk, it’s likely that the majority will vote to acknowledge the challenge, and then reject it.
Supporting documents in the Assembly agenda packet follow:
AR 2023-181_1_-NOTICE OF ELECTION CONTEST.5.15.FINAL.DOC
AR 2023-181_2_2023 AIM ELECTION CONTEST PROCEDURE.FINAL.DOC
AR 2023-181_4_2023-0504 NOTICE OF ELECTION CONTEST.PDF.PDF
AR 2023-181_5_CLERK S REPORT REGARDING MAY 4, 2023, NOTICE OF ELECTION CONTEST.DOC.DOC
AR 2023-181_6_CLERK S REPORT_ELECTION CONTEST_FINAL.DOCX.DOCX
AR 2023-181_7_EXHIBIT A_ANCH VOTES POSTCARD 2023_001.PDF.PDF
