On December 15, the Alaskan Independence Party filed this reply Brief in the Alaska Supreme Court in Kohlhaas v State, S-18210.
The reply brief, as expected, argues that the top-four initiative passed last year violates the Alaska Constitution. But it also suggests a possible compromise. Pages two and three points out that the initiative covered three separate subjects: campaign finance disclosure, top-four, and ranked choice voting for the general election. This reply brief suggests that because these are so diverse from each other, that the court might order a re-vote on the initiative in 2022, with all three subjects separated out from each other, so the voters could vote separately on each idea.
That is an interesting idea, that I am certain will be supported by a sizable amount of the populace Especially because of how close the referendum last November was, I think a lot of people would support certain parts of the bundle and not others. This seems like the fairest way forward.
However, are the different provisions severable? If they are, then it does not appear that there would need to be a separate election for all three clauses. Does the court have the ability to invalidate just the top-four primary, but keep the campaign finance and RCV provisions intact? Or are these clauses not severable from each other?
The severability idea is discussed in the earlier briefs, and it is somewhat murky. The intervenors who support top-two seem to believe severability is possible. The intervenors even said that if freedom of association is a problem for the initiative, the State Supreme Court could always order that party labels be dropped from ballots.