Anchorage Superior Court Judge Laura Hartz, appointed by Gov. Mike Dunleavy, has allowed to stand the campaign violation fines levied in January by the Alaska Public Offices Commission against the group challenging Alaska’s ranked choice voting system.
The repeal of ranked choice voting will be on November’s general election ballot.
The Alaskans for Honest Elections was successful in getting enough signatures to get the question on the ballot in November, giving Alaska voters another chance to consider whether they want to use ranked choice voting and nonpartisan primaries as their method to elect people to state and federal offices. But their handling of their campaign finances was lacking and exposed them to a complaint with Alaska Public Offices Commission.
The dark-money group Alaskans for Better Elections, which created the final-four primary and ranked choice voting general, had originally filed that complaint, saying that Alaskans for Honest Elections, Phil Izon, Art Mathias, and Wellsprings Fellowship violated campaign finance laws by not accurately reporting the pathway of a major donation to the group’s signature-gathering effort.
After the complaint was filed, APOC reviewed the facts and issued one of the largest penalties in APOC memory: $94,610.20.
The fine can be compared to a 2021 fine that APOC levied against the campaign of Mayor Dave Bronson, who was fined $38,500 by the regulatory agency.
In 2020, APOC fined Rep. Lance Pruitt over $1 million, but then reduced it by 99% and ultimately fined him $10,222.
In 2014, Rep. Chris Tuck was fined $14,000 for campaign reporting errors.
But for Alaskans for Honest Elections, which wants to repeal 2020’s Ballot Measure 2, APOC determined that the full court press was appropriate. Mathias contributed $90,000 to the Ranked Choice Education Association, which then gave the money to Alaskans for Honest Elections. The source of the original funds was not clear to the public.
Judge Hartz wrote, “There is no constitutional right to make anonymous contributions for the purpose of influencing the outcome of an election. There is likewise no right to contribute through an intermediary or in the name of another, and the court declines to create such a right.”
Hartz also wrote that the Alaskans for Honest Elections claim that “true source reporting does not apply to ballot initiatives misreads the admittedly confusing but ultimately plain language of .065(c) and ignores the broader statutory framework referenced in the statute. Appellants’ reading of the statute renders meaningless multiple subsections of AS 15.13.040 and 2 AAC 50.352 in full. Courts ‘generally disfavor statutory constructions that reach absurd results.'”
The judged concluded that Alaska’s true source reporting statute and related provisions are narrowly tailored to the government’s “substantial interest” in having an informed electorate by making publicly available to voters the true source of election funds.
“Courts have recognized that knowing the sources of election spending ultimately informs voters’ decisions, prevents groups from ‘hiding behind dubious and misleading names’ and likewise prevents individuals from hiding in anonymity. The Alaska Supreme Court has likewise held that ‘[w]hen citizens vote on the basis of misinformation, or a lack of relevant information, the decision-making process on which our government ultimately rests suffers.'”
Alaskans for Better Elections asked the judge to impose triple damages on Alaskans for Honest Elections, but was denied.
The full judgment can be read here:
