On December 1, the Alaskan Independence Party filed a lawsuit against the top-four primary, the initiative that passed earlier this month. The lawsuit is filed in state court and depends on the Alaska constitution. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled in 2005 in State of Alaska v Green Party that the Alaska constitution gives greater protection to political parties than the U.S. Constitution does. In the 2005 case, the state had required separate primary ballots for each qualified party. The Green Party and the Republican Moderate Party sued over that law, and said they had a right to participate in a blanket primary, in which members of each of those two parties would appear on a joint primary ballot. They won the case, even though when they filed the case, in 2003, they were no longer qualified parties. See this story about the new lawsuit.
The Alaskan Independence Party wants to nominate its own candidates. The top-four primary permits individuals who have no support from the party to run for office with the party’s label, and the party thus loses control over its name on ballots. UPDATE: here is the Complaint.
A faction/fraction of ALL Electors/Voters nominate.
Case is frivolous — one of many.
SCOTUS screwed up the mess in 2000 Jones case — infecting some States — esp AK.
—–
NOOO primaries.
Equal nom pets
PR and AppV
TOTSOP
Also –
what control does a party have over any regular primary candidate using the party’s label/name in any primary nomination petition ???
More private ASSumed name control stuff – for PUBLIC offices ???
IMO, if s political party is a private association, then it owns its own name and ought to be able to control which candidates may use it.
PUBLIC Electors nominating PUBLIC candidates for PUBLIC offices —
see 1989 SCOTUS EU op and 1979 case in Eu footnote.
The December 1, 2020 print issue of BAN cited in the complaint is inaccurate. Alaska lists all political groups on the registration form.
Alaska could simplify matters by adopting a form of party qualification like Florida, Perhaps there could be some minimal number (25?) and a requirement for republican form of governance. And then require all presidential candidates qualify by personal appearance (1/20 of 1% is 180 voters).
The BAN article ignores dynamic effects. If there were 3 Democrats and one Libertarian on the blanket primary ballot, it is not rational to vote for the Libertarian, since he would qualify regardless of how many votes he did or did not receive.
The individual plaintiffs do not have standing. There is no constitutional right for political organizations to have their endorsements published on the ballot. Private groups of course have a right to form, make endorsements, and publicize those endorsements. Question 2 does not restrict those efforts beyond financial reporting which the plaintiffs are not challenging.