Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC REPORTER. 

Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, 

303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email 

corrections@akcourts.us. 

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA 

STATE OF ALASKA, 

Appellant, 

v. 

ALASKA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, 

Appellee. 

) 

) Supreme Court No. S-16875 

Superior Court No. 1JU-17-00563 CI 

O P I N I O N 

No. 7279 – August 24, 2018 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, First 

Judicial District, Juneau, Philip M. Pallenberg, Judge. 

Appearances: Laura Fox, Assistant Attorney General, 

Anchorage, and Jahna Lindemuth, Attorney General, Juneau, 

for Appellant. Jon Choate, Choate Law Firm LLC, Juneau, 

for Appellee. 

Before: Stowers, Chief Justice, Winfree, Maassen, Bolger, 

and Carney, Justices. 

WINFREE, Justice. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The Alaska Democratic Party amended its bylaws to allow registered 

independent voters to run as candidates in its primary elections without having to 

become Democratic Party members, seeking to expand its field of candidates and thereby 

nominate general election candidates more acceptable to Alaska voters. But the Division 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of Elections refused to allow independent voter candidates on the Democratic Party 

primary election ballot, taking the position that Alaska election law — specifically the 

“party affiliation rule” — prevented anyone not registered as a Democrat from being a 

candidate in the Democratic Party’s primary elections. The Democratic Party sued for 

declaratory and injunctive relief preventing enforcement of the party affiliation rule, and 

the superior court ruled in its favor. The State appealed. Because the Alaska 

Constitution’s free association guarantee protects a political party’s choice to open its 

primary elections to independent voter candidates, and because in this specific context 

the State has no countervailing need to enforce the party affiliation rule, we affirm the 

superior court’s decision. 

II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS 

A. Alaska’s Election System 

Alaska uses a mandatory primary election or petition process to decide who 

may appear as a candidate for statewide office on the general election ballot.1 A 

2 candidate affiliated with a recognized state political party may appear on the general

election ballot by winning a primary election against other party candidates.3 A 

1 See generally AS 15.25. 

2 See AS 15.80.008 (defining recognized political party); AS 15.80.010 

(defining political party); AS 15.07.050 (providing for voter registration affiliating with 

political party). Alaska also recognizes two types of unaffiliated voters: “nonpartisan” 

and “undeclared.” AS 15.07.075. A nonpartisan voter affirmatively registers as 

nonpartisan. Id. An undeclared voter registers as undeclared, fails to declare an 

affiliation, or declares affiliation with an unrecognized political group or party. Id. We 

refer to both types of voters as “independents” or “independent voters.” 

3 See AS 15.25.010 (providing for party primary election); AS 15.25.100 

(providing that winner of party primary election has name placed on general election 

ballot). 

-2- 7279
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

candidate not representing a political party may appear on the general election ballot by 

submitting a petition with a sufficient number of qualified voters’ signatures.4 Aside 

5 from provisions for replacing candidates who withdraw, the only other way a candidate

may be on the general election ballot is by filing as a write-in candidate.6 

Political party status is measured by each party’s support statewide. “[A]n 

organized group of voters that represents a political program” qualifies as a political 

party if it nominated a candidate for governor who received at least three percent of the 

total votes cast for governor in the preceding general election or if it has registered voters 

in the state equal to at least three percent of the votes cast for governor in that election.7 

Party status has several benefits: political parties may make and receive larger political 

contributions, nominate members of election boards, appoint poll watchers, obtain seats 

4 See AS 15.25.140 (providing for petition); AS 15.25.190 (providing 

successful petitioner has name placed on general election ballot); see also AS 15.25.160 

(setting signature requirement for statewide office at one percent of number of voters in 

state in preceding general election); AS 15.25.170 (setting signature requirement for 

district-wide office at one percent of number of voters in district in preceding general 

election). 

5 See AS 15.25.110 (“If a candidate of a political party nominated at the 

primary election dies, withdraws, resigns, becomes disqualified . . . , or is certified as 

being incapacitated . . . , the vacancy may be filled by party petition.”). 

6 See AS 15.25.105(a) (“If a candidate does not appear on the primary 

election ballot or is not successful in advancing to the general election and wishes to be 

a candidate in the general election, the candidate may file as a write-in candidate.”). 

7 AS 15.80.010(27)(A). If the governorship was not on the ballot, the rule 

applies using the office of United States senator. AS 15.80.010(27)(B). If neither 

position was on the ballot, the rule applies using the office of United States 

representative. AS 15.80.010(27)(C). 

-3- 7279
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on the Alaska Public Offices Commission, and, most importantly, gain automatic access 

to the general election ballot for its candidates through primary elections.8 

Under Alaska Statutes any political party member may run in a party 

primary by filing a declaration of candidacy, statement of income sources and business 

interests, and filing fee. 9 The declaration of candidacy includes a statement under oath 

that the person meets Alaska’s candidate eligibility requirements,10 and eligibility is 

subject to verification by the director of elections.11 The candidate eligibility 

requirements include restrictions on residency, citizenship, voter qualification, age, 

multiple candidacies, cross-filing, and party affiliation.12 Under this last requirement — 

the party affiliation rule — primary election candidates must be “registered to vote as a 

member of the political party whose nomination is being sought.”13 A political party 

may not waive the party affiliation rule, but it may opt to have a single primary election 

ballot or a combined primary election ballot with one or more other parties.14 Political 

8 See AS 15.13.070 (contributions); AS 15.10.120 (election boards); 

AS 15.10.170 (poll watchers); AS 15.13.020(b) (Alaska Public Offices Commission); 

AS 15.25.100 (general election ballot access); see also State, Div. of Elections v. 

Metcalfe, 110 P.3d 976, 981-82 (Alaska 2005) (explaining benefits recognized political 

parties receive). 

9 See AS 15.25.030(a) (declaration of candidacy); AS 15.25.030(b) 

(statement of income sources and business interests); AS 15.25.050 (filing fee). 

10 See AS 15.25.030(a). 

11 See AS 15.25.042. 

12 See AS 15.25.030(a)(6), (9), (10), (11), (14), (16). 

13 See AS 15.25.030(a)(16). 

14 See State v. Green Party of Alaska (Green Party I), 118 P.3d 1054, 1070 

(continued...) 

-4- 7279
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

parties also may choose whether to allow independent voters or other parties’ voters to 

participate in their primary elections.15 By default, primary election ballots are designed 

to allow independent voters to participate in a political party’s primary election but to 

exclude other political parties’ voters from participating in that primary election.16 

Alaskans may change their voting registration status at any time.17 

B. The Democratic Party’s Challenge 

The Democratic Party is a recognized Alaska political party with over 

75,000 members. The Democratic Party historically allowed only Democratic Party 

members to run as primary election candidates, but it recently became interested in 

allowing independents to run as candidates in its primary election. The Democratic Party 

first sought judicial approval for this course of action in 2016, but the superior court 

dismissed that case as unripe because the Democratic Party’s bylaws did not then allow 

independent candidacies. 

The Democratic Party later amended its bylaws to allow independent voters 

to participate as candidates in its primary elections. The Democratic Party petitioned the 

Division of Elections to allow these candidacies, but the Division denied the request 

because it conflicted with the party affiliation rule. The Democratic Party then brought 

the current lawsuit, once more challenging the party affiliation rule’s constitutionality. 

14 (...continued) 

(Alaska 2005). The Democratic Party opted to have a combined ballot with other parties 

after our ruling in Green Party I. 

15 See AS 15.25.014(b). 

16 See AS 15.25.010. 

17 See AS 15.07.040 (“A person who is qualified . . . is entitled to register at 

any time . . . .”). 

-5- 7279
 
 

 

 

 

 

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the superior 

court granted the Democratic Party’s and denied the State’s. The court concluded that 

the Democratic Party had an associational right under the Alaska Constitution to allow 

independent candidates to run in its primary election and that the party affiliation rule 

severely burdened this right by infringing on the Democratic Party’s internal decisionmaking. The court also concluded that the State’s interest in requiring candidates and 

political parties to have demonstrable public support was not advanced by the party 

affiliation rule, that the fit between the State’s interest in preventing voter confusion and 

the party affiliation rule was not close enough to justify the burden on the Democratic 

Party’s associational right, and that the State had not demonstrated how its interest in 

political stability was advanced by the party affiliation rule. 

The State appealed. We expedited consideration of the appeal and issued 

18 19 a brief order affirming the superior court’s judgment. We now explain our decision. 

18 State v. Alaska Democratic Party, No. S-16875 (Alaska Supreme Court 

Order, Apr. 4, 2018). 

19 “This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo and will affirm 

if, when the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there 

are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law.” Green Party I, 118 P.3d at 1059 (citing Sonneman v. State, 969 P.2d 

632, 635 (Alaska 1998)). “Constitutional claims . . . are questions of law and are 

reviewed de novo. In conducting de novo review, we will ‘adopt the rule of law that is 

most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy.’ ” Id. (footnote omitted) (first 

citing Sonneman, 969 P.2d at 635; then quoting Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281, 1284 n.6 

(Alaska 1979)). 

-6- 7279
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

III. DISCUSSION 

The Alaska Constitution grants every person the right to “freely speak, 

write, and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.”20 This 

inherently guarantees the rights of people, and political parties, to associate together to 

achieve their political goals.21 When those associational rights conflict with another law, 

like the Alaska election code, it is our duty to decide whether the Constitution has been 

violated.22 

Our constitutional inquiry is governed by State v. Green Party of Alaska 

(Green Party I): 

When an election law is challenged the court must first 

determine whether the claimant has in fact asserted a 

constitutionally protected right. If so we must then assess 

“the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the 

rights.” Next we weigh “the precise interests put forward by 

the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule.” 

Finally, we judge the fit between the challenged legislation 

and the [S]tate’s interests in order to determine “the extent to 

which those interests make it necessary to burden the 

plaintiff’s rights.” This is a flexible test: as the burden on 

constitutionally protected rights becomes more severe, the 

government interest must be more compelling and the fit 

20 Alaska Const. art. I, § 5. 

21 See Green Party I, 118 P.3d at 1064-65; Vogler v. Miller (Vogler I), 651 

P.2d 1, 3 (Alaska 1982). 

22 “[O]ur duty to uphold the Alaska Constitution is paramount; it takes 

precedence over the politics of the day and our own personal preferences.” Planned 

Parenthood of the Great Nw. v. State, 375 P.3d 1122, 1133 (Alaska 2016) (citing Alaska 

Const. art. XII, § 5 (requiring public officers to swear to “support and defend . . . the 

Constitution of the State of Alaska”)); Malone v. Meekins, 650 P.2d 351, 356 (Alaska 

1982) (“[T]he judicial branch . . . has the constitutionally mandated duty to ensure 

compliance with the provisions of the Alaska Constitution . . . .”). 

-7- 7279
 
 

 

 

 

 

between the challenged legislation and the [S]tate’s interest 

[ ] must be closer. 23

Under this framework we conclude that the Democratic Party has an associational right 

to choose its general election nominees, that this right is substantially burdened by the 

party affiliation rule, and that the State’s asserted interests do not have a sufficiently 

close fit to justify the burden. For these reasons — and based on the unique facts of this 

case, specifically the Democratic Party’s bylaws allowing independent voters, in addition 

to Democratic Party voters, to be candidates in primary elections — we affirm the 

superior court’s decision to enjoin the party affiliation rule as unconstitutional. 

A.	 The Democratic Party Has An Associational Right To Choose General 

Election Nominees That Can Include Allowing Independent Voters To 

Run As Candidates In Its Primary Elections. 

The first step in our analysis is to decide whether the Party “has in fact 

asserted a constitutionally protected right.”24 We conclude that the Party has asserted a 

constitutionally protected right — the right to choose its general election nominees. 

We begin our analysis with the uncontroversial premise that political parties 

have a constitutional right to choose their general election nominees. This right is 

reflected throughout United States Supreme Court decisions interpreting the First 

Amendment, which we consider in our interpretation of the Alaska Constitution; the 

Court has struck down laws requiring binding open presidential preference primaries,25 

23 Green Party I, 118 P.3d at 1061 (footnotes omitted) (quoting O’Callaghan 

v. State, 914 P.2d 1250, 1254 (Alaska 1996)). 

24 See id. 

25 See Democratic Party of U.S. v. Wis. ex rel. La Follette, 450 U.S. 107, 126 

(1981). 

-8-	 7279
 
 

 

laws requiring closed primaries,26 laws preventing a party from endorsing primary 

27 28 candidates, and laws requiring a blanket primary. Even in cases that sustained 

challenged laws, the existence of this right has not been questioned.29 There can be no 

doubt that, at least broadly speaking, the Democratic Party has the right to choose its 

general election nominees. 

The more difficult question is whether this general right to choose election 

nominees can include allowing independents to be candidates in the Democratic Party’s 

primary elections. We conclude that it can. 

The United States Supreme Court suggested that such a right existed in 

Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut, when it observed: 

Were the State to restrict by statute financial support 

of the Party’s candidates to Party members, or to provide that 

only Party members might be selected as the Party’s chosen 

nominees for public office, such a prohibition of potential 

association with nonmembers would clearly infringe upon the 

rights of the Party’s members under the First Amendment to 

26 See Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208, 225 (1986). 

27 See Eu v. S.F. Cty. Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 229 (1989). 

28 See Cal. Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 586 (2000). 

29 See, e.g., Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, 359 

(1997) (“[T]he New Party, and not someone else, has the right to select the New Party’s 

‘standard bearer.’ ”); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 736-37 (1974) (upholding 

disaffiliation law because of important state interests, not failure to assert a right); S.D. 

Libertarian Party v. Gant, 60 F. Supp. 3d 1043, 1050 (D.S.D. 2014) (holding affiliation 

requirement “only minimally burdens [the political party’s] associational rights” 

(emphasis added)). 

-9- 7279
 
30 Tashjian, 479 U.S. at 215 (emphases added). 

31 Green Party I, 118 P.3d 1054, 1057 (Alaska 2005). 

32 Id. 

33 Id. at 1061. 

34 Id. at 1063 (quoting Tashjian, 479 U.S. at 215 n.6). In Tashjian the 

Connecticut Republican Party sought to allow independent voters to participate as voters 

in its primary election (an “open” primary). 479 U.S. at 212-13. The Court held that a 

state statute prohibiting open primaries unconstitutionally burdened the Connecticut 

Republican Party’s associational rights. Id. at 225. 

-10- 7279
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

organize with like-minded citizens in support of common 

[ ] political goals. 30

Though dicta, this language plainly contemplated that the First Amendment might protect 

the Democratic Party’s asserted right to associate with independent candidates. 

Our previous case law likewise suggests this result. In Green Party I the 

Green Party of Alaska and the Republican Moderate Party challenged a statute requiring 

“each political party to have its own primary ballot on which only candidates of that 

political party appear.” 31 The two parties sought to present their respective candidates 

on a combined ballot and asserted the statute unconstitutionally burdened their 

associational rights.32 We agreed, concluding that “political parties have a 

constitutionally protected associational interest in opening their ballots to voters who 

would otherwise vote in the primaries of their own political parties.”33 In reaching this 

conclusion, we favorably noted that in Tashjian “the political party itself wished to invite 

independent voters to participate in its primary election” and thus “there was ‘no conflict 

between associational interests of members and nonmembers.’ ”34 We also interpreted 

California Democratic Party v. Jones as “reaffirm[ing] the reasoning behind Tashjian,” 

and we highlighted Jones’s language emphasizing the importance of selecting a 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nominee.35 In Green Party I we explicitly rejected the State’s argument that Tashjian did 

not support the existence of a right because it limited its holding to independent voters; 

we instead embraced the “overarching principle[s]” of Jones and Tashjian, recognizing 

“[t]he right to determine who may participate in selecting [a party’s] candidates — and, 

if the political party so desires, to seek the input and participation of a broad spectrum 

of voters — is of central importance to the right of political association.”36 We noted that 

“where a party invites a voter to participate in its primary and the voter seeks to do so, 

we should begin with the premise that there are significant associational interests at 

stake.”37 

By analogy to Green Party I, the Democratic Party’s associational right to 

choose its general election nominees does not depend on party registration: “[W]here 

a party invites a [candidate] to participate in its primary and the [candidate] seeks to do 

so, we should begin with the premise that there are significant associational interests at 

stake.”38 We therefore conclude that the Democratic Party has an associational right to 

choose its general election nominees and that the right can include allowing independents 

to run in its primary elections. 

35 Green Party I, 118 P.3d at 1064. In Jones the California Democratic Party 

sought to prevent voters of other political parties from participating in its primary 

election (a “closed” primary). 530 U.S. 567, 571 (2000). The Supreme Court held that 

a state statute mandating a blanket primary in which voters of one political party could 

vote in another political party’s primary election unconstitutionally burdened the 

California Democratic Party’s associational rights. Id. at 586. 

36 Green Party I, 118 P.3d at 1064. 

37 Id. at 1064 n.72 (quoting Clingman v. Beaver, 544 U.S. 581, 602 (2005) 

(O’Connor, J., concurring)). 

38 See id. (quoting Clingman, 544 U.S. at 602 (O’Connor, J., concurring)). 

-11- 7279
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

B. The Burden On The Democratic Party’s Rights Is Substantial. 

The next step in our analysis is evaluating the “character and magnitude of 

the asserted injury to the” Democratic Party’s associational right to choose its general 

election nominees.39 The extent of the burden determines how closely we will scrutinize 

the State’s justifications for the law: substantial burdens require compelling interests 

narrowly tailored to minimally infringe on the right; modest or minimal burdens require 

only that the law is reasonable, non-discriminatory, and advances “important regulatory 

interests.”40 

We conclude that the party affiliation rule substantially burdens the 

Democratic Party’s right to choose its general election nominees. We recognize there 

are federal cases holding that candidate eligibility restrictions like the party affiliation 

rule present only a modest burden.41 Perhaps most relevant to this case, in Clingman v. 

Beaver a plurality of the United States Supreme Court reasoned that a party registration 

requirement does not severely burden parties’ associational rights because “[t]o attract 

39 Id. at 1061 (quoting O’Callaghan v. State, 914 P.2d 1250, 1254 (Alaska 

1996)). 

40 See O’Callaghan, 914 P.2d at 1254; see also Timmons v. Twin Cities Area 

New Party, 520 U.S. 351, 358 (1997). 

41 See, e.g., Clingman, 544 U.S. at 590-91 (plurality opinion) (prohibiting 

other parties’ voters from voting in Libertarian primary not severe burden); id. at 604 

(O’Connor, J., concurring) (prohibiting other parties’ voters from voting in Libertarian 

primary is modest burden); Timmons, 520 U.S. at 363-64 (holding anti-fusion law — 

preventing parties from nominating candidate already nominated by another party — not 

severe burden); Libertarian Party of Mich. v. Johnson, 714 F.3d 929, 932 (6th Cir. 2013) 

(affirming lower court’s conclusion that sore loser statute — preventing parties from 

nominating candidate who ran and lost in another primary election — not severe 

burden); S.C. Green Party v. S.C. State Election Comm’n, 612 F.3d 752, 757 (4th Cir. 

2010) (holding sore loser statute not severe burden); S.D. Libertarian Party v. Gant, 60 

F. Supp. 3d 1043, 1050 (D.S.D. 2014) (holding party affiliation rule not severe burden). 

-12- 7279
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

members of other parties, the [party] need only persuade voters to make the minimal 

effort necessary to switch parties.”42 The State urges this same reasoning to us, arguing 

the Democratic Party “can nominate via its party primary any candidate that it can 

convince to run as a party candidate — i.e., to register with the party.” (Emphasis in 

original.) 

But the constitutional burden cannot be resolved by following these cases 

because the Alaska Constitution is more protective of political parties’ associational 

interests than is the federal constitution.43 In Green Party I we specifically rejected the 

Clingman reasoning that the ability to register with a party lessened the burden on 

associational rights, instead concluding that requiring voters to “fully affiliate themselves 

with a single political party or to forgo completely the opportunity to participate in that 

party’s primary . . . place[d] a substantial restriction on the political party’s associational 

rights.” 44 As we explained: “The choice that the [S]tate forces a voter to make means 

that a political party cannot appeal to voters who are unwilling to limit their primary 

choices to the relatively narrow ideological agenda advanced by any single political 

party.”45 This choice changed “not just . . . which candidates the political party 

ultimately nominates, but also . . . the ideological cast of the nominated candidates.”46 

This change in ideological cast is exactly what the Democratic Party now seeks by 

42 544 U.S. at 591 (plurality opinion); see also id. at 604 (O’Connor, J., 

concurring) (“The semiclosed primary law, standing alone, does not impose a significant 

obstacle to participation in the [party]’s primary . . . .”). 

43 See Vogler I, 651 P.2d 1, 3 (Alaska 1982). 

44 118 P.3d at 1065. 

45 Id. 

46 Id. 

-13- 7279
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

opening its primary to independent candidates. To the extent the combined-ballot ban 

in Green Party I substantially burdened the political parties’ asserted rights in that case, 

so too does the party affiliation rule burden the Democratic Party’s asserted rights in this 

case. 47 To conclude otherwise would be to reject the very interest that the Democratic 

Party seeks to recognize; the Democratic Party does not just want primary election 

candidates who happen to be independent voters, it wants candidates because they are 

independent voters. Even if federal law does not recognize this burden as substantial, 

it does not change the magnitude of the burden under the Alaska Constitution.48 

C.	 The State Has Failed To DemonstrateA Compelling Interest Justifying 

The Burden On The Democratic Party. 

Because the party affiliation rule substantially burdens the Democratic 

Party’s associational rights, the State must justify the burden with sufficiently important 

state interests.49 When weighing whether sufficiently important interests justify a burden 

47	 See id. 

48 We note further that none of the State’s proffered cases presented the 

factual scenario we address here — a political party intentionally amending its bylaws 

to allow independent voters to run as candidates. In Clingman the party sought to 

affiliate with voters of different parties. 544 U.S. 581, 585 (2005). In Timmons, South 

Carolina Green Party, and Johnson, the political parties sought to nominate candidates 

who ran in a different party’s primary. See Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 

U.S. 351, 354 (1997); S.C. Green Party v. S.C. State Election Comm’n, 612 F.3d 752, 

755 (4th Cir. 2010); Libertarian Party of Mich. v. Johnson, 714 F.3d 929, 930-31 (6th 

Cir. 2013). In Storer and Van Susteren v. Jones, the parties were not involved in the 

challenge. See Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 726-27 (1974); Van Susteren v. Jones, 

331 F.3d 1024, 1025 (9th Cir. 2003). And in Gant the nominee was a member of a 

different political party, not an independent. See S.D. Libertarian Party v. Gant, 60 F. 

Supp. 3d 1043, 1044 (D.S.D. 2014). The issue before us would seem to be a matter of 

first impression under federal law. 

49 We have described this analysis as two steps: whether the right is 

(continued...) 

-14-	 7279
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

on associational rights, we evaluate “whether the challenged legislation actually 

advances those interests without unnecessarily restricting the political parties’ right[s].”50 

“ ‘[I]t is not sufficient for the [S]tate to assert theoretical possibilities, albeit undesirable 

ones, to justify incursions upon free speech rights protected by the Alaska Constitution.’ 

Instead, the [S]tate must explain why the interests it claims are concretely at issue and 

how the challenged legislation advances those interests.”51 When reviewing “the 

adequacy of the [S]tate’s explanation, a court must ask not ‘in the abstract . . . whether 

fairness, privacy, etc., are highly significant values[ ] but rather . . . whether the aspect 

of fairness, privacy, etc., addressed by the law at issue is highly significant.’ ”52 

If the challenged law advances the relevant aspect of a compelling state 

interest, we must weigh the fit between the law and that interest to ensure that the law is 

not overly restrictive of the protected rights.53 Because election decisions necessarily 

involve judgment on matters of policy ill-suited to judicial second-guessing, we usually 

defer to the legislature’s election decisions by reviewing the fit for reasonableness.54 

49 (...continued) 

sufficiently important and whether it is narrowly tailored. But in this case the 

Democratic Party concedes, and we agree, that each of the State’s asserted interests are 

compelling, so we analyze these steps together. 

50 Green Party I, 118 P.3d at 1065. 

51 Id. at 1066 (footnote omitted) (quoting Vogler v. Miller (Vogler II), 660 

P.2d 1192, 1196 (Alaska 1983) (Rabinowitz, J., concurring)). 

52 Id. (omissions, emphasis and second alteration in original) (quoting Cal. 

Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S 567, 584 (2000)). 

53 See State, Div. of Elections v. Metcalfe, 110 P.3d 976, 980-81 (Alaska 

2005). 

54 See id. at 981. 

-15- 7279
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whether the challenged law is “in the mainstream of the practices of other states” is 

relevant, but not outcome determinative, in assessing reasonableness.55 

The State claims compelling, narrowly tailored interests in ensuring 

sufficient public support for political parties and candidates, preventing voter confusion, 

and promoting political stability. We address each asserted interest in turn. 

1.	 The party affiliation rule does not advance the State’s interest 

in ensuring public support for the Democratic Party. 

The State’s first asserted interest is in ensuring public support for 

recognized political parties. 56 The State argues that it makes sense to confer benefits to 

recognized political parties only if they have significant public support. And because 

public support for a political party is measured by the strength of the candidates it 

nominates,57 the State claims it can ensure that a political party has public support only 

if the party and candidate are linked through the party affiliation rule. We are 

55 See id. (upholding three percent eligibility threshold “[i]n light of the 

deference we accord to the legislature on such issues, and because the three percent 

figure remains in the mainstream of the practices of other states” (emphasis added)); 

Green Party of Alaska v. State (Green Party II), 147 P.3d 728, 736 (Alaska 2006) (“[W]e 

concur with the superior court that Alaska’s requirements are ‘within the mid-range’ of 

other states, and that the legislature acted reasonably in using this standard to determine 

party eligibility.” (emphasis added)); see also Vogler II, 660 P.2d at 1196 (Rabinowitz, 

J., concurring) (“I do not join in the court’s intimation that the [S]tate could meet its 

burden of justifying [its law] merely by citing the existence of arithmetically similar 

statutes in the other jurisdictions. Other states are different geographically from Alaska, 

have different voter populations, are governed by their own unique constitutional 

guarantees and have statutory patterns of election laws that may vary substantially from 

that in Alaska.”). 

56 See supra p. 3. 

57 See supra note 7 and accompanying text. 

-16-	 7279
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

unconvinced. The flaw in the State’s argument is that the “link” between candidate and 

political party does not depend on party registration status. 

The State claims that the party affiliation rule is necessary because “[w]hen 

a Democrat wins the Democratic primary, is listed on the general election ballot as a 

Democrat, and wins over voters as a Democrat, those votes reasonably — albeit roughly 

— approximate public support for the Democratic Party.” But as the Democratic Party 

points out, inquiry into voter motivations is inherently speculative: “[T]he State cannot 

reasonably discern whether a vote for an individual candidate is motivated by support 

for the [Democratic] Party, support for the [Democratic] Party’s policy platform, support 

for the candidate, in opposition to another candidate that the voter does not want to see 

elected, or some combination of the above.” Because the State does not know the 

reasons underlying a vote in an open primary election, and even more so in a combinedballot primary election, the claim that the party affiliation rule allows it to use candidate 

support as a proxy for party support is illusory. Rather, as the Democratic Party argues, 

“support for the candidate is imputed to the party because the party has associated with 

the candidate as its nominee.” A candidate need not be a registered party member for 

this imputation to occur. 

The State counters that, at least to some degree, registration with a political 

party means the candidate “identifies with the party and advocates its views” and that 

voters logically assume this to be true. But the State cannot show this to be true or even 

likely. As the United States Supreme Court has noted, “the act of formal enrollment or 

public affiliation with [a] [p]arty is merely one element in the continuum of participation 

in [p]arty affairs, and need not be in any sense the most important.”58 Given the ease of 

58 Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208, 215 (1986). 

-17- 7279 
 

 

 

 

 

 

registration and the lack of party vetting to run as a registered candidate in Alaska,59 a 

candidate who does not support a party’s principles or platform could run in a primary 

as a registered party candidate just as easily as a registered independent candidate. A 

registered independent candidate could be even more involved with the party and support 

more of the political party’s principles and elements of its platform than a registered 

party candidate. The party affiliation rule does not “concretely” advance the State’s 

interest.60 

2.	 The party affiliation rule is not narrowly tailored to ensuring 

that candidates have sufficient public support. 

The State’s next asserted interest is in ensuring that candidates demonstrate 

public support before the State places their names on the general election ballot. The 

State argues that the party affiliation rule is “integral” to ensuring that candidates 

demonstrate a “significant modicum of support” because the State’s recognition of an 

official political party allows it to impute party support to the candidate as a proxy for 

candidate support. The State argues that it “cannot infer support for the candidate” if the 

primary winner disavows the political party by refusing to register with it. 

We do not find the party affiliation rule a reasonable method of ensuring 

candidate support. As a threshold matter, the State’s interest in ensuring a “modicum of 

support” is not an important interest in and of itself. As we have explained, the interest 

in ensuring public support for candidates is grounded in “an interest ‘in avoiding 

59 See AS 15.25.030(16) (requiring declaration candidate is “registered to vote 

as a member of the political party whose nomination is being sought”); AS 15.07.050(c) 

(permitting supply of voter registration application indicating political party or group to 

voter affiliated with said political party or group); AS 15.07.070(c) (directing voter 

registration applications completed 30 days before election to be placed on official 

registration list). 

60 See Green Party I, 118 P.3d 1054, 1066 (Alaska 2005). 

-18-	 7279
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

confusion, deception, and even frustration of the democratic process at the general 

election’ ” through frivolous or fraudulent candidates.61 The State’s asserted interest in 

ensuring a modicum of support thus is valid only so far as the party affiliation rule 

advances the underlying interests in avoiding confusion, deception, and frustration of the 

democratic process at general elections. 

Properly grounded in these interests, the party affiliation rule is not 

narrowly tailored to the State’s asserted interest. The party affiliation rule is simply 

unnecessary in most cases; there generally is no need to impute political party support 

in a contested primary election because candidate support is demonstrated by the voters’ 

selection of the candidate as the political party’s nominee. The State’s interest comes 

into play only in an uncontested or low-turnout primary election, in preventing a rogue 

candidate from slipping onto the general election ballot as a political party candidate. 

But even if this edge-case scenario occurred with sufficient regularity to warrant concern, 

the State has taken no action to prevent it; under the current statutory scheme, an 

unaffiliated voter could just as easily register as a party member and win as a rogue 

candidate in an uncontested or low-turnout election.62 The State’s assertion that the party 

affiliation rule is necessary to stop this deception does not withstand reasonable scrutiny. 

3.	 The party affiliation rule is not narrowly tailored to prevent 

voter confusion. 

The State next argues that the party affiliation rule helps prevent voter 

confusion arising from independent candidates running under a political party’s banner. 

61 See State, Div. of Elections v. Metcalfe, 110 P.3d 976, 980 (Alaska 2005) 

(quoting Vogler II, 660 P.2d 1192, 1195 (Alaska 1983)); see also Jenness v. Fortson, 

403 U.S. 431, 442 (1971). 

62 See AS 15.07.040 (“A person who is qualified . . . is entitled to register at 

any time throughout the year . . . .”). 

-19-	 7279
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The State first explains that the primary election ballot, which can include multiple 

parties, 63 is designed to include only each candidate’s name and political party 

designation. The State thus concludes that voters will find it impossible to tell which 

primary election an independent is running in on a combined primary ballot. The State 

next explains that the general ballot, mandated by statute, lists each candidate by name 

and associated political party.64 The State thus concludes that the general election ballot 

will either present independent candidates without indicating that a party nominated 

them, a deceptive bait-and-switch, or present candidates as both independent and 

political party nominees, which will be “linguistically confusing, deceptive, or both.” 

We are not persuaded by either argument. 

On the primary election ballot, the State could simply print next to each 

candidate’s name the political party whose primary election the candidate is running in. 

On the general election ballot, the State could simply print the nominating party’s name 

next to the candidate’s name. The State appears to concede that the primary election 

ballot can be redesigned, but it is unsatisfied with the resulting general election ballot. 

The State argues that the possible descriptors for a candidate’s party affiliation — such 

as “nonpartisan,” “undeclared,” “non-affiliated,” or “independent” — are by definition 

inaccurate, and that whichever word is chosen will cause voter confusion or deception. 

But we believe the State’s concerns underestimate the Division of Elections and Alaska 

voters’ common sense. 

63 See Green Party I, 118 P.3d at 1070 (holding that parties have right to 

combine ballots with each other). 

64 See AS 15.15.030(5) (“The names of the candidates and their party 

designations shall be placed in separate sections on the state general election ballot under 

the office designation to which they were nominated. The party affiliation, if any, shall 

be designated after the name of the candidate.”). 

-20- 7279
 
 

 

 

 

 

In Green Party I we expressed confidence in Alaska voters, reasoning that 

“given that Alaska’s blanket primary system caused little apparent voter confusion, 

[there is] no basis for predicting that Alaska voters might be incapable of understanding 

combined ballots.” 65 This case is no different. We are confident the Division of 

Elections will be able to design a ballot that voters can understand. And if the State 

remains convinced that the ballot design itself will be confusing, it has several other 

options to adequately inform the public. The ballot could include prominent disclaimers 

explaining that a candidate’s party affiliation denotes only the candidate’s voter 

registration and nothing more.66 The candidate’s party affiliation as distinct from 

nominating party could be explained in the candidate’s statement in the general election 

pamphlet.67 The political party could also promote or distance its platform, tenets, and 

philosophy from a candidate’s through a paid advertisement in the pamphlet. 68 And the 

State could choose to educate the public about new ballots through advertising or 

explanatory materials, such as the general election pamphlet.69 The State provides no 

basis for predicting that Alaska voters will be unable to understand a Democratic Party 

nominee who nonetheless is, for voter registration purposes, an independent voter. The 

65 118 P.3d at 1068. 

66 See AS 15.15.030 (“The director shall prepare all official ballots to facilitate 

fairness, simplicity, and clarity in the voting procedure, to reflect most accurately the 

intent of the voter, and to expedite the administration of elections.”). 

67 See AS 15.58.030 (directing parameters of candidate’s statement). 

68 See AS 15.58.040 (permitting political party to generally promote its 

candidates). 

69 See AS 15.58.020(a)(9) (designating information to be provided in general 

election pamphlet, including “additional information on voting procedures that the 

lieutenant governor considers necessary”). 

-21- 7279
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State’s bare assertion of an abstract interest in deterring voter confusion and deception 

is therefore insufficient to support the party affiliation rule’s substantial burden.70 

4.	 The party affiliation rule either does not advance or is not 

narrowly tailored to promoting political stability interests. 

The State’s final interest is in “the stability of its political system.” The 

State argues the party affiliation rule promotes political stability by “protecting the 

integrity of the State’s two routes to the general election ballot, preserving party labels 

as meaningful sources of information for voters, and maintaining political parties as 

viable and coherent entities.” We conclude that the party affiliation rule either does not 

advance these interests or is not narrowly tailored to advancing them. 

First, the party affiliation rule does not advance the integrity of the two 

routes to the ballot. In Green Party I we held that the combined-ballot ban was not 

justified solely because the State had an interest in “nominating ‘party candidates 

through a primary election rather than through direct party selection of candidates.’ ”71 

We reasoned that this interest, while “clearly legitimate,” was “not concretely at issue” 

70 See Green Party I, 118 P.3d at 1068. The State argues in passing that we 

should identify at least one ballot that could survive a pre-election challenge and not be 

unduly confusing. But designing ballots is committed to the Division of Elections, not 

to us. See AS 15.15.030(1). And to the extent the State is concerned it will not be able 

to complete pre-election litigation of the ballot design before November elections, this 

concern is unfounded. See Pebble Ltd. P’ship ex rel. Pebble Mines Corp. v. Lake & 

Peninsula Borough, 262 P.3d 598, 601 n.19 (Winfree, J., dissenting) (“It is not 

uncommon for us to consider a case on an expedited basis and issue a summary 

dispositional order with an opinion to follow . . . .” (citing Miller v. Treadwell, 245 P.3d 

867, 867, 874 (Alaska 2010) (ordering expedited briefing, holding oral argument, and 

issuing opinion within 12 days of superior court’s contested election case decision); 

Keller v. French, 205 P.3d 299, 299, 301-02 (Alaska 2009) (ordering expedited briefing, 

holding oral argument, and issuing dispositive order within one week of appeal in highprofile political dispute, with full opinion following later))). 

71 118 P.3d at 1066. 

-22-	 7279
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

because a challenge to “the way the primary election is conducted” does not implicate 

the State’s interest in holding primaries.72 The same reasoning applies here. The State 

clearly has a legitimate interest in having primary elections for candidates associated 

with a political party and petitions for candidates not representing a political party. But, 

as explained above, an independent candidate associates with the Democratic Party 

simply by running in its primary. The two nomination methods’ integrity is not under 

threat because the primary route to the general election ballot remains solely for 

candidates associated with a political party. In the State’s words, there still remain “two 

distinct routes to the general election ballot — one for party candidates and one for nonparty candidates.” 

Second, the party affiliation rule is not a reasonable way of maintaining 

political party labels’ informational value for voters. The State asserts that an 

independent candidate chosen by independent voters cannot represent the Democratic 

Party message when the candidate runs under the Democratic Party’s label. This is true 

to a point: “To the extent that party labels provide a shorthand designation of the views 

of party candidates on matters of public concern, the identification of candidates with 

particular parties plays a role in the process by which voters inform themselves for the 

exercise of the franchise.”73 But it is also somewhat beside the point. At the political 

party level, the State’s desire to “protect[] the integrity of the Party against the Party 

itself” is not a legitimate motivation.74 The State cannot force the Democratic Party to 

favor certain viewpoints for the sake of the State’s political system. And at the general 

election level, political parties may already choose to nominate their candidates by 

72 Id. 

73 Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208, 220 (1986). 

74 See id. at 224. 

-23- 7279
 
 

 

 

 

seeking the input of voters who are independent, or even from other parties.75 We cannot 

say that requiring a candidate to adopt a political party label will do anything to make 

candidates more representative of the views the State believes that political party 

represents. The party affiliation rule is not a reasonable way of preserving the 

informational value of party labels. 

Finally, the State has not met its burden of showing that the party affiliation 

rule is a reasonable and necessary way of preserving the viability of political parties. 

The State asserts that the party affiliation rule is necessary for executive branch 

candidates to represent the majority of the people and for legislative branch candidates 

to organize themselves into “coherent groups.” The State asserts that losing the party 

affiliation rule will “erode the functioning of a democracy and undermine voters’ faith 

in it.” But the State does not explain why this outcome is likely to occur beyond the bare 

assertion that it will, and “it is not sufficient for the [S]tate to assert theoretical 

possibilities, albeit undesirable ones, to justify incursions upon free speech rights 

protected by the Alaska Constitution.”76 Absent further explanation, we see no basis for 

concluding that the party affiliation rule is what ensures the long-term stability of 

Alaska’s political system. This interest cannot justify the substantial burden on the 

Democratic Party’s associational rights. 

V. CONCLUSION 

For these reasons, we AFFIRM the superior court’s judgment. 

75 See supra p. 4. 

76 See Green Party I, 118 P.3d at 1066 (quoting Vogler II, 660 P.2d 1192, 

1196 (Alaska 1983) (Rabinowitz, J., concurring)). 

-24- 7279