Opinion ID: 2607238
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Absence of language required by statute

Text: Contestants argue that the postcard violates Alaska election law because it did not bear the words paid for by, as required by AS 15.56.010. [13] The State argues that the postcard satisfies the purpose of AS 15.56.010 and that its distribution should thus not be considered a corrupt practice under AS 15.20.540. Because the postcard was distributed by persons other than election officials, Contestants must demonstrate that its distribution was a corrupt practice, not simply malconduct. AS 15.20.540(1) & (3). We first consider the significance of the omission of the information required by AS 15.56.010. This court has held that the term malconduct as used in AS 15.20.540 means a significant deviation from statutorily or constitutionally prescribed norms. Hammond v. Hickel, 588 P.2d 256, 258 (Alaska 1978) (citing Boucher v. Bomhoff, 495 P.2d 77 (Alaska 1972)). Although Hammond v. Hickel involved claims of official malconduct rather than third-party corruption, given our prior holding that election statutes will be liberally construed to uphold the will of the electorate, Carr v. Thomas, 586 P.2d 622, 626 n. 11 (Alaska 1978), we choose to apply Hammond 's requirement of a significant deviation from statutory norms to all grounds for an election contest under AS 15.20.540. In this case, assuming the language of the postcard was intended to influence the election of a candidate, no significant statutory deviation occurred. AS 15.56.010(a)(2). The statute presumably requires that the postcard bear the words paid for by and the sponsor's name and return address. [14] However, the postcard identified its source, and also identified the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) as a supporter of Candidate Knowles. Thus, the apparent purpose of AS 15.56.010  to promote an informed electorate and to allow voters to evaluate the solicitations they receive  was substantially met. Cf. Messerli v. State, 626 P.2d 81, 87 (Alaska 1980) (Identification of the source of advertising may be required as a means of disclosure, so that the people will be able to evaluate the arguments to which they are being subjected.) (quoting First National Bank v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 792 n. 32, 98 S.Ct. 1407, 1424 n. 32, 55 L.Ed.2d 707 (1978)). Since distribution of the postcard did not significantly frustrate the purposes of AS 15.56.010, it cannot be said that the deviation from that statute was a corrupt practice ... sufficient to change the results of the election for the purposes of AS 15.20.540. Even assuming the deviation was sufficient to support a misdemeanor charge of violating AS 15.56.010, we hold that a technical failure to comply strictly with that statute is not sufficient to invalidate ballots where the purpose of the statute has been satisfied. See Carr, 586 P.2d at 625-26 (citing the well-established policy which favors upholding of elections when technical errors ... do not affect the result of an election, and recognizing that courts are reluctant to permit a wholesale disfranchisement of qualified voters where a reasonable construction of the statute can avoid such a result). Consequently the failure to indicate on the postcard who paid for it is not ground for an election contest under AS 15.20.540(3) in this case.