Top-Four Supporters in Alaska Fail to Obtain Attorneys Fees from the Plaintiffs

As noted previously, after the Alaska voters passed a top-four system in November 2020, the Alaskan Independence Party, and Libertarian activist Scott Kohlhaas filed a lawsuit in state court to overturn the initiative. They did so based on a precedent from the Alaska Supreme Court that parties have strong freedom of association rights under the state constitution, and that it violates those rights to print party labels next to the name of candidates, even though the particular parties might not approve of those candidates and would never have nominated them.

The state trial court upheld the top-four initiative. Afterwards, the supporters of top-four asked the trial court to order the plaintiffs to pay approximately $50,000 in attorney fees to the top-four attorneys.

On October 4, the state trial court declined to order any payment of attorney fees from the plaintiffs. Here is the four-page opinion.

In 2012, top-two supporters in California won a state trial court order that plaintiffs (in a lawsuit against two particular characteristics of top-two) must pay attorneys fees to attorneys for top-two supporters. The order was for approximately $250,000.

These two incidents reveal that supporters of top-two, top-four, and similar plans are hostile to their very core to minor parties and their activists.


Comments

Top-Four Supporters in Alaska Fail to Obtain Attorneys Fees from the Plaintiffs — 10 Comments

  1. Parties, big and small, have a proprietery right to their own names, labels, symbols, and trademarks. They possess the right to determine who may, or may not, use them.

  2. No names on ballots. No censorship, no advertising subsidies on ballots. Let the voters speak freely by writing in their choices on the ballot. Abolish all ballot access laws.

  3. PUBLIC nominations and elections by PUBLIC electors-voters.

    Parties are PRIVATE groups.

    See 1989 Eu opin.

  4. The write-in paper ballot looks good, especially if used under pure proportional representation, and the new United Coalition has been using write-in ballots since day one August 1st 1995 when Harry Browne the Libertarian won and Colin Powell was VP.

    When you look at the nominations for Prez, VP and Presidential Electors since 1776 write-in nominations and ballots make sense.

    Now more than ever, write-in names for both nominations and votes make sense, and that’s exactly what our team the United Coalition is doing now.

    By writing in twelve consecutively ranked names using numerals we’re able to increase our size by twelve from 538-member to the new 6457-party/caucus system using the Droop Quota.

    Nominations going on now!

    Nominations become the votes too.

    Should a new marked paper ballot for nominating or electing be received, then the new marked paper ballot from that voter, replaces the previously marked paper ballot.

    http://Www.allpartysystem.com/e-aps-13.php

    Also;

    http://Www.1libertarian.com

  5. California LP Chair is saying in 2021; “We are united (by using censorship of new voices.)”

    Me; That depends on which side you identify being united with; united with the 51% who won 100% of all seats on CA LP?

    Are we united with those in charge of censorship, or those being censored?

    The 51% who censored (Chair claimed that the 51% is “United”) or those who never spoke at 2020 California LP convention because the 51% “already knew who we wanted for President, so no need for all twelve choices to speak, six of twelve is good”.

    Hint: The whites are united in censorship of the minorities who were bringing competition and were censored.

    All three California Presidential candidates for President (Ardelianu, Armstrong and Ogle) were totally censored from the only California Presidential debate in 2020 or before 2020, it was conducted before the Pandemic, six of twelve candidates were 100% censored from joining the Presidential debate.

    I was one who was censored from bringing the new idea of pure proportional representation I’ve been trying to speak about since 1992; the Sainte Lague parliament seat distribution system.

    Three Prez candidates from outside the State were censored too (Monds, Gephardt and Grey), for a total of six of twelve censored including one of whom was not considered white. That was Monds. One of six censored relegated to the floor was a 2nd female candidate.

    The white majority didn’t want competition from a 2nd women for President and there were ten female Libertarian Party Presidential candidates who filed Form 2 with Federal Elections Commission who we wanted to mention by joining the debates.

    This happened and is happening in LNC, not just California, but in all States.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.