Opinion ID: 2607238
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Legality of postcard mailing

Text: We must next consider whether mailing the postcards was a corrupt practice on the theory that the postcards offered something of value and were distributed with an intent to influence the way voters cast their ballots, in violation of AS 15.56.030. [15] In response the State asserts that the drawing cannot have violated AS 15.56.030 because not only was participation in the drawing not contingent on a vote for Candidate Knowles, but drawing participants were not required to vote at all. The State reasons that because it was not necessary to vote to enter the drawing, entry in the drawing cannot be construed as a payment in exchange for the participant's vote. The trial court held that distributing the postcard did not constitute a corrupt practice, and granted partial summary judgment to the State on that issue. Insofar as is pertinent here, AS 15.56.030(a)(2) is violated when a person [1] offers ... [2] money or other valuable thing [3] to a person [4] with the intent to induce the person to vote for or refrain from voting for a candidate.... By prominently mentioning the AFN's endorsement of Candidate Knowles, the postcard potentially encouraged recipients to vote for a particular candidate. This facially non-neutral message is evidence of an intent to induce persons to vote for a person they might not otherwise have favored. This non-neutral message distinguishes it from the North Slope Borough's transportation assistance program. The drawing offer consequently comes closer to offering a thing of value, a chance to win one thousand dollars, to encourage a vote for a particular candidate. [16] We hold that the drawing offer potentially violated AS 15.56.030(a)(2), because it was accompanied by a non-neutral message. Given that message and the State's failure to demonstrate that there was no intention to induce voters to vote for a particular candidate, the trial court could not say as a matter of law that the mailing did not violate AS 15.56.030(a)(2). [17] The issue consequently could not be resolved on summary judgment.