On November 3, Alaska state officials said they will ask the State Supreme Court to reverse the October 17 decision of a trial court in Alaska Democratic Party v State. The Superior Court had ruled that both the U.S. Constitution and the Alaska Constitution protect the ability of the Democratic Party to let independent voters seek its nomination, even though state law says no one may seek a party nomination unless that person is a member of the party. See this story.
NO extremist robot party hack primaries.
PR and AppV
The lower court decision would likely kill off any independent wanting to run in the Democratic primary. The Democratic rules said that an independent could run in their primary, and if they were nominated, they would appear as “Independent” on the general election ballot. The motive was that if opposing a Republican, the Independent would garner votes from Democrats, independents, and even some Republicans (who would never vote for a Democrat). If the candidate were to run as an independent (by petition), Dave Donut could win the Democratic primary simply by filing. In the general election, Democrats would not know to vote for the independent, and would automatically vote D as in Donkey, Democrat, Dave, and Donut.
in 2016, a Democratic candidate for the House withdrew, and an independent was elected. The independent then worked with the Democrats and a few renegade Republicans to gain control of the House. In another district, an independent was elected where no Democrat ran.
But the lower court said that the ballot would have to say Democratic, since that who nominated the “independent” candidate. If a candidate wanted to run as an “Independent” they would not run in the Democratic Party, since that would label them as a Democrat, which is not the message they would want to convey.
At best it would open an oppurtunity for Ronnie Raygun to switch to non-partisan and file in the Democratic Primary. He would draw Democratic votes, spoiling the bid of the independent.
Alaska would be better off by adopting Top 2.
Would an Independent who wanted to clear the field of any Democrats be able to do something similar to what Bernie does in Vermont in his Senate runs, where he wins the Democratic primary and then renounces the party’s nomination?
Alaska permits a nominee to withdraw. The party may name a replacement. In 2014, the Democratic nominee for governor Brian Mallot withdrew, and Mallot was named the running mate for independently (by petition) nominated Bill Walker. The Alaska Democratic Party did not choose a replacement for the gubernatorial race. A quirk is that the members of the the committee that regulates campaign expenditures are chosen from two most successful parties in the most recent gubernatorial race. Since the Democrats did not have a candidate, the Libertarians finished second. In a certain sense, the Republicans and Libertarians could be considered the major parties in Alaska.
The Vermont Democratic Party could have chosen a replacement for Sanders, but did not do so.
In Vermont, Sanders is not technically seeking the Democratic nomination. Some Democratic voters petitioned him on the ballot, and then he consented to let it happen. When he was running for US Representative, he was frequently nominated by the Democratic Party as a write-in. This is probably easier to pull off in Vermont because of its small population and isolation.
Alaska statute does not permit someone to declare for a primary and run for that office or any other. So in Alaska, they might have to arrange for a stand-in. If there was only on Democrat on the ballot he would likely be nominated, and then could withdraw. In 2016, two independents were elected to the Alaska House. In one case, the Democrats did not run a candidate, and in another the Democrat candidate withdrew. Both seats would likely have been won by a Republican in a three-way race.