In a recent decision, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled 4-1 in favor of allowing Eric Hafner, a Democrat and imprisoned felon in New York, to remain on the ballot for Alaska’s U.S. House seat.
This ruling came despite a legal challenge questioning his eligibility based on residency requirements.
The court’s thorough 22-page opinion clarified its stance largely hinged on interpreting the word “fifth” as specified in Ballot Measure 2, a measure approved by Alaskan voters in 2020.
The new electoral law established an open primary election alongside a ranked-choice general election.
Under this system, the top four vote-getters in the primary, regardless of political affiliation, advance to the general election.
However, after the 2024 primary, two Republican candidates withdrew from the race to consolidate support for Nick Begich III, leaving Hafner, who had received the sixth-highest votes, in a position to take their places on the ballot.
The implications of the court’s decision brought Hafner into focus since he had never lived in Alaska prior to his candidacy and, had he won, would have faced barriers in serving due to constitutional residency requirements.
In response to Hafner’s candidacy, the Alaska Democratic Party filed a lawsuit, arguing that the Division of Elections was misinterpreting the ballot measure by promoting a candidate beyond the fifth-place finisher.
The lawsuit contended that if more than one candidate withdrew, the rules did not support promoting candidates further down the order.
The Division of Elections and the Alaska Republican Party countered this interpretation, leading to a legal battle.
After hearing arguments, an Anchorage Superior Court judge and subsequently the Alaska Supreme Court sided with the election division, which preserved Hafner’s eligibility.
Notably, regardless of the court’s decision, Hafner’s presence on the ballot ultimately had no impact on the election outcome, as he did not secure enough votes to influence the results.
Mary Peltola, the then-incumbent representative, lost to Nick Begich III by a margin that exceeded the votes earned by Hafner, underscoring that even if Hafner’s supporters had switched allegiance to Peltola, she would still have been defeated.
The Supreme Court’s majority opinion articulated that the ambiguity surrounding the language of Ballot Measure 2 allowed for multiple interpretations.
Justices expressed that this uncertainty necessitated a careful consideration of the intent behind the voters’ approval of the measure.
In the opinion, they referenced a historical tendency favoring ballot access for candidates, which aligned with the broader aim of increasing choices for Alaskans.
Justice Jude Pate, who authored the majority opinion, emphasized that the drafters of Ballot Measure 2 sought to provide voters with a diverse slate of candidates in the general election.
“The language and purpose of Ballot Measure 2 favor the division’s interpretation: Allowing successive replacements aligns with the ballot measure’s goal of furnishing greater candidate choices for voters,” wrote Pate.
Contrarily, Justice Susan Carney offered a dissenting view, maintaining that the language of the statute was explicit and left little room for interpretation.
She argued that the meaning of “fifth” was clear and that the interpretation suggested by her colleagues was an overreach.
Justice Carney acknowledged that while Ballot Measure 2 indeed expanded voter options, the judicial interpretation strayed from the law’s plain wording.
Carney expressed concern that the court’s ruling could lead to inconsistencies in future elections, stating, “The lengths to which the court has reached to conclude otherwise are unnecessary and unreasonable.”
The ruling has sparked discussions about electoral law interpretation and candidates’ rights, emphasizing the ongoing complexities within Alaska’s political landscape.
As Alaska continues to navigate these legal intricacies, the implications of this decision may influence future elections and candidate eligibility debates.
image source from：adn
