The Alaska Republican Party became an opposing party to the case that the Alaska Democratic Party has brought against the Division of Elections over the general election ballot.
The Democrats say that including Democrat Eric Hafner’s name on the general election ballot for the congressional race violates the law. Oral arguments were heard Monday morning in Anchorage Superior Court and Judge Ian Wheeles said he would have a decision by Tuesday.
At issue is whether Eric Hafner’s name can be moved up into the fourth slot on the ranked-choice ballot. Two previous candidates dropped out who would have been on the ballot — Nancy Dahlstrom and Matthew Salisbury. That meant John Wayne Howe and Eric Hafner moved to the third and fourth slot.
The ballot now has Mary Peltola, Nick Begich, John Wayne Howe, and Eric Hafner for voters to choose from or rank in November. The Democrats say that ranked-choice voting law only mentions that the fifth-place finisher can move up, and says nothing about the sixth-place finisher.
Usually in laws, however, if it is not prohibited, then it is legal.
One of the arguments made by the State of Alaska, as it defended the Division of Elections was, what if there were only six candidates and four candidates dropped out? Does the mean the fifth candidate would win by default and the sixth-place candidate is not even put on the general election ballot?
But the Democrats are suing over Hafner because he is a Democrat — and because he is serving in federal prison in New York State for serious threats against public officials. The Democrats’ brief says that Alaska voters might vote for Hafner first and then not rank incumbent Rep. Mary Peltola second. At least three times in the Democrats’ brief they say that voters might be confused by ranked-choice voting. These Democrats are the same ones who argue that ranked-choice voting does not confuse voters but gives them more choices.
The Democrats also say Hafner can’t possibly serve if he wins because he is serving a 20-year sentence, which they imagine cannot be commuted or reduced.
The State pointed out that the Democrats did not challenge Hafner’s credentials when he was running in the primary against 11 other candidates even though he was in prison and they would have easily been able to know that.
The Republican Party’s motion to intervene says the party has standing because it has one of the four candidates on the congressional section of the November ballot, and that “through the litigation, and now subsequent to the Primary Election, Plaintiffs [Alaska Democrats] seek an order from this court to essentially change the law and regulation relating to rank choice voting, and seek to disregard the will of the voters.”
The Democrats, according to the Republican Party, are trying to change the outcome in November through this litigation.
“While Plaintiff, like the ARP, may be frustrated by the consequences of rank choice voting, it is the current law in the State of Alaska unless repealed in the upcoming General Election. By their Complaint, Plaintiffs admit that they are trying to manipulate the ultimate outcome of the General Election. Accordingly, the ARP has a very acute interest in the outcome of this litigation because of the plain admission that Plaintiffs seek to affect the outcome of the election,” the Republicans say in their motion to intervene.
The Republican Party is not represented by any lawyer that is actual party to the case, but “Plaintiffs [Democrats] request that the court ignore well-settled constitutional law, and manipulate the rank choice voting law in order to craft who will appear on the ballot outside the democratic process. And second, the State, while it will defend its law, its loyalties lie with the voting public, not the parties or candidates.”
Superior Court Judge Wheeles granted the Republican Party “intervenor status” in the lawsuit the conspiracy-driven Democrats brought, in which they say that Republicans cooked up a plan to get Hafner on the ballot.
Democrats are concerned because they now see polling that shows Republican Nick Begich has pulled even with Mary Peltola since the primary ended.
Carmela Warfield, Alaska Republican Party chairwoman, said “We believe the inclusion of the second Democrat on the general ballot is well within the parameters of applicable laws, and a direct result of the ranked choice voting scheme that is currently the law in Alaska. If our traditional, historical voting process was in place, this issue would be moot — the second, incarcerated Democrat would never have made it through his party’s primary. The fact is, we are currently burdened with ranked choice voting and its results, whether we like it or not.”
Warfield concluded, “It does not have to be this way. This November, Alaskans will have a choice to do what is best for Alaska and reject outside influence to ensure this nonsense never happens again in our great state.”
Hafner is the new poster boy for Rank Choice Voting.
If he won, would it be lawful for him to be our representative?
Even in prison, Hafner would still attend more congressional votes than Peltola.
It would absolutely be lawful for him to be our representative, as long as he met the legal requirements. Ask a question get an answer. You need to ask a specific question though to get to the specific answer you want.
Why don’t the democrats just sue to remove all candidates except Peltola? It would be more honest.
Yes, but by the Left’s twisted bizarro-world logic you would be incapable of claiming the moral high-ground if you’re honest.
My second choice on the ballot will be Hafner.
In the outside chance that he wins, the democratic president could issues a pardon.
Then he can establish residency in Alaska.
This is just another reason to get rid of RCV.
Let the people decide Mary
But, but, but…What about “diversity, equity, and inclusion”, democrats?!? Just more hypocritical “do as I say, not as I do” from the left…
I thought Ranked choice voting was good?
What changed?
Everybody together! Let’s Go Hafner! Let’s Go Hafner!
Just remember that ranked voting is about dark money and open primaries…it’s not about getting preferred candidates on the ballot, at all.
The RCV chickens have come home to roost.
Democrats can’t stop crowing about how incredibly fair and wonderful RCV is…. until it starts to work against them! Then they bring suit to stop it. Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat!
Comments are closed.