On October 6, the Ninth Circuit ruled against the Alaskan Independence Party, in the party’s attempt to keep Daniel DeNardo from running in its primary for public office. The case will go down in history with the wrong party name, because the U.S. District Court erroneously misstated the party’s name in its opinion, and the error was carried forward in the briefs submitted to the 9th circuit. The actual name of the party is Alaskan Independence Party, but the case will be reported as Alaska Independence Party v State, unless anyone asks the Court to correct the caption. 07-35186.
The Ninth Circuit opinion is here. The opinion implies that the Alaskan Independence Party was trying to persuade the state to let it nominate by convention. This is not accurate. The party’s only goal was to win the ability to bar Daniel DeNardo from running in its primary, since he has been suing the party and its officers for slander. The real flaw in the Alaskan Independence Party’s position is that the party seemed to be contradicting its own bylaws. Its bylaws say that anyone who is a registered member of the party may run in its primary. Before the party went to court, it should have amended its bylaws so that they conform to what it was actually trying to accomplish. In this sense, this case is very similar to a recent case brought by the Mississippi Democratic Party, which sued to get a closed primary before it had set forth precise bylaws explaining exactly what it wanted. The Mississippi Democratic Party also lost its lawsuit, earlier this year.
The Alaska Libertarian Party was a co-plaintiff in the Alaskan Independence Party’s lawsuit, but the Alaska Libertarian Party had no particular concrete problem, and the briefs on both sides generally ignored the Libertarian Party’s participation in the lawsuit. Thanks to Rick Hasen for this news.
Isn’t this just further evidence that parties should stick to conventions?
By starting with precincts and moving up to counties,maybe congressional districts, then state, parties can set their own rules for eligibility and keep out any “rogues.”
Plus, and certainly as important, then the governments are not involved and, perhaps more important, taxpayers aren’t forced to subsidize partisan activity.
Richard – Don’t blame the attorneys for the wrong name. We designated the party as Alaskan Independence Party all the way through the District Court pleadings. The District Court itself first used the wrong name in its decision, and that was then carried through the appeal. I will request that the Ninth Circuit correct the caption.
Ken Jacobus
Also, this decision was based on a facial challenge analysis only. We actually presented two separate as applied situations to both the District COurt and the Court of Appelas – the 2004 and 2006 primary elections. In any event, however, this issue is not over.
Ken Jacobus
Re #1. It is more reason to get the party labels off of ballots completely. The only reason that the Supreme Court permits states to regulate the “nomination” process is because the states incorporate the party names in their official ballots.
If Messrs Wright, Burke, and DeNardo wanted to run for Governor of Alaska, let them pay a fee and put them on the ballot. If a group of people want to get together at the Ketchikan airport and endorse a candidate they would be free to do so.