LA Quen Naay Elizabeth Med. Crow v. Beecher

• Docket Number: S-19182,7775
• Decision Date: 27 June 2025
• Citation: LA Quen Naay Elizabeth Med. Crow v. Beecher, 7775, S-19182 (Alaska Jun 27, 2025)
• Parties: LA QUEN NAAY ELIZABETH MEDICINE CROW, AMBER LEE, and KEVIN MCGEE, Appellants, v. CAROL BEECHER, in an official capacity as DIRECTOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF ELECTIONS; NANCY DAHLSTROM, in an official capacity as LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR; and the STATE OF ALASKA, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS, Appellees, and DR. ARTHUR MATHIAS, PHILLIP IZON, and JAMIE R. DONLEY, Intervenors-Appellees.
• Court: Alaska Supreme Court

1

LA QUEN NAAY ELIZABETH MEDICINE CROW, AMBER LEE, and KEVIN MCGEE, Appellants, v. CAROL BEECHER, in an official capacity as DIRECTOR, ALASKA DIVISION OF ELECTIONS; NANCY DAHLSTROM, in an official capacity as LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR; and the STATE OF ALASKA, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS, Appellees, and DR. ARTHUR MATHIAS, PHILLIP IZON, and JAMIE R. DONLEY, Intervenors-Appellees.

No. S-19182

No. 7775

Supreme Court of Alaska

June 27, 2025

Appeal from the Superior CourtNo. 3AN-24-05615 CI of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Christina A Rankin, Judge.

Scott M. Kendall, Jahna M. Lindemuth, Samuel G. Gottstein, and C Maeve Kendall, Cashion Gilmore & Lindemuth, Anchorage for Appellants.

Kimberly D. Rodgers and Thomas S. Flynn, Assistant Attorneys General, Anchorage, Lael A. Harrison, Assistant Attorney General, Juneau, and Treg Taylor, Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellees.

Kevin G. Clarkson, Law Offices of Kevin G. Clarkson, LLC, Anchorage, for Intervenors-Appellees.

Before: Maassen, Chief Justice, and Carney, Borghesan, Henderson, and Pate, Justices.

OPINION

MAASSEN, CHIEF JUSTICE.

I.INTRODUCTION

Three Alaska residents brought suit to challenge the process used by the Division of Elections to certify a ballot initiative intended for the November 2024 general election ballot.One of their allegations was that the Division violated its own regulations and the governing statutes by allowing corrections to circulators' certifications of the petition booklets used to gather supporting signatures.The superior court granted summary judgment on that issue to the Division and the petition's sponsors, who had intervened in the case.Following trial on the remaining issues, the court ordered the Division to reject some signatures and booklets, though enough remained to keep the initiative on the ballot.

If the Division's certification correction policy had been held unlawful, however, the number of valid signatures would have been less than what was needed for the initiative to qualify for the ballot.The challengers therefore appeal the superior court's summary judgment on that issue.

Concluding that the superior court's decision correctly interpreted the governing statutes and regulations, we affirmed its judgment after oral argument.This opinion explains our reasoning.

II.FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

A.Facts^[1]

Phillip Izon, Jamie R. Donley, and Dr. Arthur Mathias(collectively the sponsors) filed an application for a citizen ballot initiative in November 2022.The initiative sought to end the system of open primaries and ranked-choice voting that had been adopted by initiative in 2020.The Division of Elections certified the sponsors' application on January 20, 2023, identifying the initiative as 22AKHE.

On February 8 the Division issued petition booklets to the sponsors, starting the statutory one-year period for gathering signatures in support; the signaturegathering deadline was thus February 7, 2024.^[2] The sponsors attended a training session that covered the legal and regulatory requirements for gathering signatures and submitting petitions.The parties agree that there were nonetheless some improprieties during the signature-gathering process, such as leaving petition booklets unattended at two locations.

On January 12, 2024, the sponsors submitted 655 petition booklets to the Division.After an initial review for facial sufficiency, the Division accepted 641 of them.By statute, the Division then had 60 days to complete its review and determine whether the initiative qualified for the ballot.^[3] Another aspect of the relevant time frame is tied to the legislative session: if an initiative is approved for the ballot, it must be placed on the ballot for "the first statewide general, special, special primary, or primary election that is held after (1) the petition has been filed; (2) a legislative session has convened and adjourned; and (3) a period of 120 days has expired since the adjournment of the legislative session."^[4] The Thirty-Third Alaska Legislature convened for its Second Regular Session on January 16, four days after the sponsors filed their petition; this meant that if the initiative was approved it could appear on the November general election ballot.

During its review process, the Division found more errors and returned 64 booklets to the sponsors for corrections.Sixty of those booklets had been certified by a notary whose commission had expired; three of them had missing or incorrect notarization dates; and one failed to identify the certifier's location.The sponsors corrected and resubmitted 62 of the returned booklets between February 12 and March 1.On March 8, four days before the end of the 60-day review period, the Division finished counting the booklets - including the ones that had been corrected and resubmitted - and determined that the requirements for 22AKHE to appear on the November ballot had been satisfied.

B.Proceedings

In April 2024 Alaska residents La Quen Naay Elizabeth Medicine Crow, Amber Lee, and Kevin McGee(collectively Medicine Crow) filed a complaint^[5] against the Lieutenant Governor, the Division of Elections, and the Division's director (collectively the Division), challenging the Division's determination that 22AKHE was properly filed under article XI, section 3 of the Alaska Constitution^[6]andAS 15.45.160.^[7]The superior court permitted the initiative's sponsors to intervene.All parties agreed that claims about the Division's compliance with certification statutes and regulations would be resolved on cross-motions for summary judgment, with any remaining claims to be decided at a bench trial.

1.Summary judgment

Medicine Crow argued in her motion for summary judgment that the Division's decision to approve 22AKHE for the ballot "violated the applicable statutes and regulations."She argued that the statutory scheme governing initiatives does not allow sponsors to cure defective booklets after the Division has begun its review, and that even if the Division could allow a "piecemeal cure process," the process it used here resulted in the sponsors missing the statutory deadlines.In opposition the Division argued that the relevant statute authorizes sponsor corrections to certifications during the review process, that the Division's reading of the statute is consistent with its own regulations and the legislature's intent, that sponsors may correct certifications within the 60-day review period even after the one-year deadline and the beginning of the legislative session, and that allowing corrections furthers the will of the voters, thus aligning with the constitutional right to enact laws by initiative.The sponsors' summary judgment briefing made similar arguments.

The superior court ruled on these motions in early June.It denied Medicine Crow's motion for summary judgment and granted the Division's.^[8]The court decided that AS 15.45.130 allows the Division to return booklets to sponsors for correction after the petition is filed as long as the Division has not yet completed its signature-counting process.It reasoned that the regulation requiring a petition to be filed as a "single instrument"^[9] does not prohibit later correction or re-filing of individual booklets, and another regulation requiring the Division to return petitions with a "patent defect"^[10] only applies when the defect is discoverable at the time of submission, during the initial facial review, which was not the case here.The court concluded that the Division did not violate the governing statutes; that the legislative history indicates an intent to prevent sponsors from gathering additional signatures after timely filing their petition, not correcting certification affidavits already submitted; and that the legislature's overall intent was "to remove barriers in the petition process, and thus make it easier for circulators to certify their booklets by allowing corrections to certification affidavits, even after filing."(Emphasis in original.)

According to the superior court, its decision was consistent with "a 'constitutional principle[]' of 'interpret[ing] legislative procedures in favor of the exercise of the initiative power.' "^[11] It explained that errors in certification, such as with a notary commission, should not necessarily mean that the signatures in those booklets are not counted, thus disenfranchising those voters.The court's conclusion, in sum, was that the governing law allowed corrections to certifications to be made after the timely submission of a petition as long as they came within the Division's 60-day review period.

2.Bench trial

Trial on the remaining claims was held over five days in late June and early July.These claims were more fact-dependent than the statutory interpretation questions: they alleged that the circulators had collected some signatures unlawfully and the Division violated the law by counting them.Medicine Crow asked the court to invalidate those signatures and order the rejection of both booklets that had been unlawfully circulated and booklets from circulators who were found to have perjured themselves.

The superior court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law on July 19.It concluded that some petition booklets had to be disqualified because of "instances of non-compliant signature gathering," and it ordered the Division to remove all improperly counted signatures and decide whether there were still enough to support the petition.The Division did so, notifying the court on July 23"that the 22AKHE petition has sufficient signatures statewide and in 33 of 40 house districts."The court entered final judgment the next day against Medicine Crow and ruled that the initiative would...