Opinion ID: 1364196
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: prudhoe bay personal representative absentee ballots

Text: The superior court found that 532 voters working in the Prudhoe Bay area were issued absentee ballots obtained for them and delivered to them by business agents for Teamsters Local 959, who were acting as their personal representatives. Each of these voters obtained their absentee ballot by filling out an application form which authorized a personal representative to obtain an absentee ballot for them. The election supervisor in Fairbanks ascertained that each of these voters was properly registered to vote in Alaska and issued the ballots pursuant to an interpretation of the various sections of Alaska's election code providing for absentee ballots. [22] Appellees agree that these voters were entitled to vote by absentee ballot pursuant to AS 15.20.010(3), but argue that these voters were not entitled to obtain absentee ballots by personal representative. AS 15.20.010(3) allows a voter to vote by absentee ballot if he believes he will be unable to be present at the polls because of the physical inaccessibility of the polling place causing undue travel expense, hardship, or hazard to [him]. [23] Each of these registered voters at Prudhoe Bay met this standard. [24] Other statutory sections provide that a qualified voter may apply in person, by personal representative, or by mail for an absentee ballot. [25] Yet another statutory section, AS 15.20.150, provides the methods by which a ballot obtained through a personal representative or by mail may be cast. In addition to technical standards designed to authenticate such a ballot, [26] this section provides that the ballot may be returned by personal representative to the election official who provided it or by the most expeditious mail service, postmarked not later than the day of the election, to the election supervisor in his district. [27] It was on these general provisions concerning personal representative absentee voting that election officials based their decision to issue the absentee ballots in question to registered voters at Prudhoe Bay who were qualified to vote by absentee ballot. However, AS 15.20.120(a), specifying the basis on which an election official is to make the decision to issue an absentee ballot to a designated personal representative, injects confusion into the statutory scheme. This section provides that the voter's application for such a ballot must be signed by the applicant and ... accompanied by a letter from a licensed physician or a statement signed by two qualified voters stating that the applicant will be unable to go to the polling place because of physical disability. While this section is anomalous and difficult to integrate consistently into the statutory scheme of provisions detailing the issuance and use of personal representative absentee ballots, it is the only section of the chapter which provides election officials with explicit standards for their decisions to issue such ballots. For this reason the superior court was arguably correct in its conclusion that personal representative absentee ballots should be issued only where the requisite showing of physical disability is made by the voter. [28] The superior court found that none of these Prudhoe Bay voters were in fact physically disabled. However, we do not conclude, as did the superior court, that the decision to issue these ballots amounted to an act of malconduct by election officials. These ballots were issued as a result of the good faith attempt by those officials to interpret and implement an ambiguous statutory scheme providing for personal representative absentee ballots. [29] The purpose and effect of this interpretation was to allow properly registered Alaskan voters, who otherwise might have been unable to register their political preferences, to vote by absentee ballot. There was no evidence that the election officials were motivated by bias or a partisan desire to influence the outcome of the election. As the superior court concluded, the decision to issue these absentee ballots to the Prudhoe Bay voters' personal representatives arose from commendable intentions or good faith by the election officials involved. For these reasons, we cannot hold that election officials significantly deviated from a statutory mandate in a way that was knowingly or recklessly indifferent to that mandate. [30]