Law Commons^™

The Top-Four Primary And Alaska Ballot Measure 2, Brendan Mcguire

Alaska Law Review

This Primer provides an overview of the debate surrounding non-partisan ranked primaries. In the November 2020 election, Alaskan voters decided whether to adopt Ballot Measure 2 which, among other reforms, would introduce a top-four primary system. Under this system, the top-four vote-getters in the primary election, regardless of partisan affiliation, would advance to the general election. Supporters of the reform argue it offers voters more choices, fosters competition, creates a more representative pool of candidates, and avoids vote splitting. Opponents contend that such a system reduces representation by possibly preventing political parties from participating in general elections. Alaska will not …

Note From The Editor

Alaska Law Review

No abstract provided.

Journal Staff

Alaska Law Review

No abstract provided.

When Misrepresentation Becomes Deceptive: Analyzing Petition-Signer Inadvertence Post-Cambell, Melissa English, Daisy Gray

Alaska Law Review

In 2010, the Alaska supreme court held that a legally deficient petition summary of a ballot initiative could be corrected and put on the ballot without being recirculated for signatures. The Parental Involvement Initiative at the root of the litigation would prohibit doctors from performing abortions for unemancipated minor women who had not provided notice to or obtained consent from a parent. After the petition was circulated for signatures, the supreme court determined that omissions of fact in the petition summary rendered the summary inaccurate and therefore deficient. However, the court refused to require that the initiative sponsors recirculate the …

Keynote Address: Alaskan Election Law In 2020, Erwin Chemerinsky

Alaska Law Review

No abstract provided.

Alaska’S Ballot Initiative Today: History, Practice, And Process, Elizabeth M. Bakalar

Alaska Law Review

Since statehood, Alaska’s Constitution has included the right of the people to enact legislative change by direct democracy. The state’s initiative process as governed by the Alaska Constitution, statutes, and caselaw reflects a delicate balance of citizen participation within carefully crafted guardrails meant to ensure the efficacy of the process and the role of the legislature. Alaska courts have developed a still-evolving body of caselaw interpreting the restrictions on the subject and scope of ballot initiatives, the role of the executive and judicial branches in the initiative process, and the timing and procedural features of the process. Navigating the initiative …

Alaskan Exceptionalism In Campaign Finance, Chad Flanders

Alaska Law Review

This article argues that Alaska’s efforts in campaign finance reform are closely tied to a philosophy of “Alaskan Exceptionalism”: the view that Alaska is fundamentally different from other states. A recent decision from the Supreme Court, Thompson v. Hebdon , may, however, weaken Alaska’s right to justify its reforms through an “exceptionalist” lens. The same decision suggests the Supreme Court is further narrowing its campaign finance jurisprudence more generally. Without these campaign finance limits, Alaskan politics may continue to be dominated by the oil and gas industry, the very problem those limits sought to address in the first place

Unlocking The Ballot: The Past, Present, And Future Of Alaska Native Voting Rights, Zachary R. Kaplan

Alaska Law Review

Racial oppression in American democracy is older than America itself. While most existing scholarship focuses on the historical disenfranchisement of Black and Latinx voters, this Note tells the story of the voting rights of a smaller, but still noteworthy marginalized American community: Alaska Natives. By contextualizing the history of Alaska Native disenfranchisement within the broader national landscape, this Note seeks to illuminate the ways in which the Alaska Native experience is similar to, and unique from, the experiences of other marginalized American communities. Although this history and present are rife with troubling discrimination, inequity, and non-compliance, this Note is ultimately …

Retaining Judicial Independence: Solutions To Increasing Threats To Alaska’S Judicial Merit System, Ryan Kuchinski

Alaska Law Review

While the judicial merit system in Alaska has effectively balanced accountability with the competing need for independence in the judiciary, the growing trend of politicized retention elections threatens that independence. This Note examines the threat to the Alaskan judicial merit system, argues for the importance of protecting an independent judiciary, and proposes a number of potential solutions to reform or replace the current retention election system.

Goodbye Yellow Brick Road: Enfranchisement Among Native American Voters And Nick V. Bethel, Kristen M. Renberg

Alaska Law Review

This Comment documents the limited impact of Nick v. Bethel and proposes legislative and electoral reforms to increase enfranchisement among Alaska Natives. The Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 made significant progress in protecting minority voting rights. In 2007, a federal district court interpreted the “historically unwritten” exemption in Section 203 of the VRA for the first time in Nick. While the court found Yup’ik to be historically unwritten, the court also reasoned that written translations of election materials should be prepared in order to ensure that oral translations were effective in accommodating voters. The state responded through various actions …

How Should Alaskans Choose?: The Debate Over Ranked Choice Voting, Angela Sbano

Alaska Law Review

In November 2020, Alaskan voters will decide whether or not they will adopt a Ranked Choice Voting system for elections within their state. While the move would be an unprecedented one for the state, the state of Maine and cities across the country have already adopted Ranked Choice Voting in recent years. The electoral system of Ranked Choice Voting in the United States has seen city-wide adoption, mass repeal, and renewed interest and support over the last century. Proponents hail its ability to improve representation and campaign civility, while opponents point out its complexity and potential to decrease voter turnout. …

The Need For A Sharpe Appellate Record: Why A Clear And Complete Record On Expert Qualifications Is More Important Than Ever, Sarah Laws, Ryan Kuchinski

Alaska Law Review

In 2019, the Alaska Supreme Court overruled the twenty-year-old precedent established in State v. Coon that limited appellate review of trial courts’ rulings on the validity and admissibility of scientific evidence in a Daubert context. In State v. Sharpe , the court rejected the abuse of discretion standard, instead applying a more stringent de novo review in evaluating the trial courts’ determinations about the reliability of the scientific theory or technique underlying an expert’s testimony. Sharpe arose from three consolidated cases, all of which included evidence from the identical type of polygraph test admitted or excluded based on a single …

Did The Alaska Supreme Court Get It Right In Its Decision In The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend Case?, Jack Brian Mcgee

Alaska Law Review

In 1976, Alaska voters ratified an amendment to Alaska’s constitution that created the Permanent Fund. The amendment required twenty-five percent of certain revenues received by the state be placed in this Fund. In 1980, the Alaska Legislature created the Permanent Fund dividend program. Beginning in 1982, each Alaska resident received an annual dividend in the same amount. The amount of the dividend was automatically determined by a statutory formula. No appropriation was required.

In 2016, the Governor of Alaska vetoed close to one-half of the amount of the annual dividend as calculated by the statutory formula. In subsequent litigation, the …

Alaska’S Explicit Right To Privacy Warrants Greater Protection Of Alaskans’ Personal Data, Eric Buchanan

Alaska Law Review

Alaska’s legislature should pass a comprehensive data privacy law to prevent companies’ exploitation of citizens’ personal data. The Alaska Constitution explicitly provides Alaskans with the right to privacy and calls upon the legislature to protect that right. Despite this explicit right, Alaskans’ privacy rights are vulnerable to exploitation by private companies. Proposed legislation to address this vulnerability should ensure data privacy protection, but the legislature should remain cognizant of concerns regarding innovation and business. To best achieve this balance, the legislation should be founded in generally accepted data privacy principles and should establish strong financial penalties for companies that violate …

The Incomplete Process Of Fixing Alaska’S Domestic Violence Protective Order Statute, Samuel R. Buchman

Alaska Law Review

The Alaska legislature has codified, in section 18.66.100 of the Alaska Statutes, a process through which petitioners can seek a domestic violence protective order. Such an order offers petitioners a range of protections against a household member who has committed a crime of domestic violence. Most of the protections afforded under these orders last one year, and the means by which a petitioner could renew a domestic violence protective order has, until recently, remained unclear. In Whalen v. Whalen, decided in August 2018 by a three to two margin, the Alaska Supreme Court clarified that renewal process. The court …

The Alaskan Variable: A Call For Education Clause Analysis In School Funding Cases, Sarah Laws

Alaska Law Review

The provision of public education in Alaska is a task as monumental as the state itself, requiring innovative solutions to unique challenges faced within the state. The drafters of the Alaska Constitution understood this dilemma and granted the state legislature broad power under the education clause. Early supreme court jurisprudence interpreted this mandate broadly and granted considerable deference. However, recent school funding cases have seen the court’s jurisprudence shift to focus on different constitutional provisions and neglect an education clause analysis. The supreme court now has an opportunity to change this. Alaska Legislative Council v. Dunleavy is currently pending before …

Avoiding The Obvious: Plain Meaning And The Endangerment Of Alaska’S Hunting Laws In Kinmon V. State, Brendan Mcguire, Cormac Bloomfield

Alaska Law Review

This Comment critiques the court of appeals’ statutory interpretation of Alaska’s hunting laws in Kinmon v. State and proposes legislative reform to correct those judicially created errors. Kinmon arose from a series of hunts between 2009 and 2011 during which nonresident hunters did not pay for their big game tags until after the completion of their hunts. The guide leading these hunts was charged with violating section 16.05.340(a)(15) of the Alaska Statutes, which prohibits nonresidents from hunting big game without “previously purchasing” a big game tag. The Alaska Court of Appeals held in favor of the guide, reasoning that “previously …

Journal Staff

Alaska Law Review

No abstract provided.

Note From The Editor

Alaska Law Review

No abstract provided.