CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 11/2/2023 1

Write-In Lists 

Rudolph v. Fenumiai 

(Ralph R. Beistline, D. Alaska 3:10-cv-243) 

Voters challenged Alaska’s providing polling places with lists of 

write-in candidates so that voters could refresh their recollection 

about who was running and how to spell their names. While a motion for a temporary restraining order was pending, the Justice Department precleared the procedure, so the motion was denied as 

moot. 

Subject: Voting procedures. Topics: Section 5 preclearance; 

write-in candidate. 

On the day before the 2010 general election, in which Alaska’s Senator Lisa 

Murkowski was up for reelection, five voters sought a temporary restraining 

order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska proscribing distribution to polling places of lists of write-in candidates.1

 The voters claimed 

that the write-in-candidate lists had not received preclearance from the Justice Department, as required by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.2

 The 

court assigned the case to Judge Ralph R. Beistline.3

Senator Murkowski lost the Republican primary election in August, so 

she was running as a write-in candidate.4 On October 26, Alaska obtained 

preclearance for a plan to provide polling places with write-in lists.5 In state 

court, both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party objected to the 

state’s efforts to inform voters of the identities of write-in candidates and the 

spellings of their names.6 On October 27, Alaska’s supreme court ruled that 

poll workers could provide voters with a list of write-in candidates only on 

the voter’s request, and the list must not show the candidates’ party affiliations as originally planned.7

 In the federal action, the plaintiffs complained 

that providing lists without party affiliation had not yet been precleared.8

1. Temporary-Restraining-Order Motion, Rudolph v. Fenumiai, No. 3:10-cv-243 (D. 

Alaska Nov. 1, 2010), D.E. 3; Complaint, id. (Nov. 1, 2010), D.E. 1; see Chad Flanders, How 

Do You Spell M-U-R-K-O-W-S-K-I? Part I: The Question of Assistance to the Voter, 28 Alaska 

L. Rev. 1, 5 (2011) (“the Alaska Division of Elections sent to polling places a written list of 

write-in candidates and their party affiliations, a move unprecedented in the history of Alaska elections”). See generally Justin Levitt, Fault and the Murkowski Voter: A Reply to Flanders, 28 Alaska L. Rev. 39 (2011); Justin Levitt, Resolving Election Error: The Dynamic Assessment of Materiality, 54 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 83, 89–90, 133 (2012). 

2. Complaint, supra note 1, at 2, 4–5; see Voting Rights Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-110, 

§ 5, 79 Stat. 437, 439, as amended, 52 U.S.C. § 10304 (requiring preclearance of changes to 

voting procedures in jurisdictions with a certified history of discrimination). 

3. Docket Sheet, Rudolph, No. 3:10-cv-243 (D. Alaska Nov. 1, 2010). 

Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Beistline for this report by telephone on May 8, 2012. 

4. See Erika Bolstad, Write-In Lawsuit Unites Rivals, Anchorage Daily News, Oct. 26, 

2010, at A1. 

5. Exs. A–B, Complaint, supra note 1. 

6. See Bolstad, supra note 4. 

7. Order, Alaska v. Alaska Democratic Party, No. S-14054 (Alaska Oct. 29, 2010), at-
Write-In Lists 

2 Federal Judicial Center 11/2/2023 

Judge Beistline ordered Alaska to respond to the motion for a temporary 

restraining order by 1:00 p.m. on the day that the suit was filed; the plaintiffs’ 

reply was due at 3:00 p.m.9 By the time the reply brief was filed, the amended 

write-in-list procedure had been precleared.10 Judge Beistline, therefore, denied the motion for a temporary restraining order as moot.11 On November 

23, he approved a voluntary dismissal of the action.12 No proceeding was required for this case.13

tached as Ex. C, Complaint, supra note 1; Order, id. (Oct. 27, 2010), attached as Ex. H, Alaska Opposition, Rudolph, No. 3:10-cv-243 (D. Alaska Nov. 1, 2010), D.E. 10; see Erika Bolstad, High Court Says Voters Entitled to Write-In Lists, Anchorage Daily News, Oct. 28, 2010, 

at A1; William Yardley, Bipartisanship Fails in Court, N.Y. Times, Oct. 28, 2010, at A19; see 

also Flanders, supra note 1, at 8 (reporting that by the time of the ruling the list included 

over 150 names). 

8. Complaint, supra note 1, at 4–5. 

9. Docket Sheet, supra note 3. 

10. Reply Brief at 2–3, Rudolph, No. 3:10-cv-243 (D. Alaska Nov. 1, 2010), D.E. 13; Notice, id. (Nov. 1, 2010), D.E. 12. 

11. Docket Sheet, supra note 3. 

12. Id.

13. Interview with Hon. Ralph R. Beistline, May 8, 2012.