New lawsuit claims Alaska’s description of a proposed elections ballot measure is biased

Supporters of Alaska’s election system filed a lawsuit against the Alaska Division of Elections on Thursday, alleging that the state’s description of a roll-back-the-clock ballot measure is biased and inaccurate.

The state has defended its language, with a spokesperson calling it “accurate, neutral, and consistent with prior initiatives.”

This fall, voters will be asked with Ballot Measure 2 if they want to return Alaska’s election system to what it was in 2020. The state’s description would be printed on ballots alongside the measure.

In November 2020, Alaskans approved Ballot Measure 2, which put all political candidates for an office into the same primary election. The top four advance to a general election that uses ranked choice voting. Nonprofits that donate to political candidates are required to disclose their donors.

In 2024, an effort to repeal the primary and general election changes failed by 737 votes out of 320,985 cast statewide.

The plaintiffs in the new lawsuit are AFL-CIO president Joelle Hall, state Sen. Cathy Giessel, R-Anchorage, and former Juneau city council member Barbara Blake. All three are represented by attorney Scott Kendall, the prime author of the 2020 ballot measure that installed the current elections system.

The suit was organized by the Alaskans for Better Elections Foundation, Kendall said. Alaskans for Better Elections supported the 2020 measure and has opposed prior efforts to repeal it.

“I think (Alaskans) should know that the ballot language that has been offered by the Division of Directions is materially inaccurate, and in some cases, says the measure does the opposite of what it does, and it omits very significant changes the measure will make,” Kendall said by phone on Thursday.

In particular, the suit objects to the state’s claim that the ballot measure would restore or “bring back” campaign finance rules.

“The proposed measure (24ESEG) would not ‘restore,’ ‘bring back,’ or add even a single campaign finance rule to Alaska’s statutes,” the suit states. “Rather, 24ESEG would fully repeal a litany of campaign finance disclosure requirements, and eliminate enhanced fines.”

A key part of the 2020 ballot measure and existing state law is the requirement that nonprofit groups disclose their financial supporters if those nonprofits contribute money to election candidates.

A prior effort to repeal the 2020 ballot measure would have left the disclosure requirement in place. The new repeal effort would eliminate the dark-money disclosure law, concealing donations.

A section-by-section analysis published by the Alaska Department of Law in February 2025 concluded that this year’s measure would “reverse several changes to campaign finance disclosure requirements.”

“It repeals a ton of very, very popular campaign finance disclosure provisions, and yet, the ballot language proposes to say it restores them,” Kendall said.

The lawsuit also asserts that the state’s approved language downplays the way that political parties would be permitted to determine who may vote in primary elections.

Independent candidates would not appear on primary election ballots unless one or more political parties allow them. Independent voters would not be allowed to vote in a primary unless permitted by political parties.

Before 2020, both the Republican and Democratic parties in Alaska allowed some independent voters to participate in their primaries.

“Granting major political parties in Alaska the power to disenfranchise voters for primary elections is neither mentioned, nor even implied, in the proposed ballot language,” the lawsuit states.

The Alaska Division of Elections is being legally defended by the Alaska Department of Law, which has not been formally served with the lawsuit but has a copy of the complaint.

“We have been in the midst of ongoing discussions with plaintiffs’ counsel, who was urging the adoption of ballot language that would have departed from the legal standard requiring accuracy and neutrality,” said Sam Curtis, a spokesperson for the Department of Law.

“We have not yet been served with the complaint and will review it when we are. The ballot language at issue is accurate, neutral, and consistent with prior initiatives. The alternative language advanced by the plaintiffs would be confusing and inject advocacy where the law requires impartial description. We are confident the courts will uphold the State’s language.”

The plaintiffs challenging the state have diverse political perspectives: Hall is a registered Democrat, Giessel is a Republican, and Blake is a registered nonpartisan. All three have opposed prior repeal efforts and are opposing this year’s as well.

“People tell me that they’ve signed initiatives, particularly this year — and other years previously as well — and then they find out that actually what they were told they were signing was misrepresented to them. So I want them to know exactly what’s in this,” Hall said.