Opinion ID: 765960
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exceptions to Issue Preclusion

Text: 17 Although the elements for applying issue preclusion under Alaska law are present in this case, the Republican Party urges us to apply several federal exceptions to this doctrine which would allow them to litigate the issues that the district court determined to be precluded by O'Callaghan . 18 First, the Republican Party argues that it did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues in O'Callaghan, and therefore issue preclusion should not apply. See , e.g., Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 313 (1983); Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 480-81 (1982). The basis for this argument is that the Republican Party did not join the case until it was before the Alaska Supreme Court, and therefore it did not have the opportunity to develop a record. The Republican Party argues that this fact is particularly significant because O'Callaghan employed a balancing test, and the development of a record could have changed this balance. 19 In determining whether the Republican Party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate these issues, we are mindful of the principle that state proceedings need do no more than satisfy the minimum procedural requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause in order to qualify for the full faith and credit guaranteed by federal law.  Kremer, 456U.S. at 481. In this case, the Alaska Supreme Court accepted the contentions of the Republican Party that the possibility of raiding and loss of party accountability burdened the Party's associational rights. See O'Callaghan, 914 P.2d at 1261.Moreover, the Republican Party fully briefed and argued its position before the Alaska Supreme Court (as well as before the United States Supreme Court in its petition for certiorari), and fails to point to facts that it was unable to present or how these facts would have affected the outcome. Therefore, we conclude that the Republican Party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues decided in O'Callaghan. 20 The Republican Party's other arguments may be disposed of quickly. 8 First, it asserts that issue preclusion is inappropriate in this case because it had no choice but to intervene before the Supreme Court of Alaska because the constitutional rights of the Republican Party and its members were at stake, and therefore it did not freely and without reservation submit[ ] its federal claims to the state court. Haring, 462 U.S. at 313-14 n.7; England v. Louisiana State Bd. of Medical Examiners, 375 U.S. 411, 419 (1964). However, this exception does not apply because the Republican Party did not have to intervene in the O'Callaghan action. For example, it could have participated as amicus curiae, or declined to participate at all and pursued its complaint in federal court. 21 The Republican Party also argues that the Red Fox exception should apply, because the state court's decision was transparently erroneous. However, this exception, described in dicta in Red Fox v. Red Fox, 564 F.2d 361, 365 (9th Cir. 1977), is explicitly based upon the Indian Civil Rights Act and the unique historical relationship between the American Indian and the federal government. Moreover, the determination of the state court in O'Callaghan, applying a balancing test to find that Alaska's blanket primary was not unconstitutional, was not transparently erroneous. This determination was based upon a permissible interpretation of United States Supreme Court precedent, a conclusion bolstered by the fact that this circuit also applied a balancing test in upholding California's blanket primary system. See California Democratic Party, 169 F.3d at 653. 22 Finally, the Republican Party argues that issue preclusion should not be applied because the state court was unwilling or unable to protect federal rights.  Haring, 462 U.S. at 314. Examples of situations where this exception may apply are when the state court did not provide fair procedures for the litigation of constitutional claims, or where a state court failed to even acknowledge the existence of the constitutional principle on which a litigant based his claim. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 101 (1980). Beyond the denial of a full and fair opportunity to litigate, discussed above, the Republican Party does not assert that the Alaska Supreme Court failed to provide fair procedures or failed to acknowledge the existence of the relevant constitutional principles. The fact that the Republican Party disagrees with the decision in O'Callaghan falls far short of triggering this exception, and we therefore conclude that this argument is without merit. 23 On the basis of the foregoing discussion, we conclude that the district court properly found that Alaska law required the application of issue preclusion on the basis of O'Callaghan, and that none of the exceptions set forth by the Republican Party are applicable. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's partial grant of summary judgment to the State on this basis. 24