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.
Until 2020, political parties determined who could vote and run in primary elections, voters were required to pick just one candidate in the general election, and people could donate secretly to nonprofits that could then pass money to candidates.
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.
Giessel said she wants Alaskans to know what they’re voting on.
“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,” she said.
Hall is an experienced campaigner.
“People need to know what they’re being asked to vote on, as clear as possible. Because some people will walk into that booth and read that word for word,” she said. “They will not have made up their mind ahead of time. So it just needs to be really clear.”
What do you think?
Below are the two versions of the proposed language on Ballot Measure 2. Which do you think is clearer and more accurate?
First, the state-written language:
An Act Restoring Political Party Primaries, Single-Choice General Elections, and Campaign Finance Rules
This act would get rid of open primary elections and ranked-choice general elections. It would bring back political party primaries and single-choice general elections. It would also bring back campaign finance rules.
Elections will occur as they did before open primaries and ranked choice voting. In the primary election, voters will choose a party’s ballot. They will vote for one candidate in each race and the winning candidate will be the party’s nominee. In the general election, voters will select one candidate in each race. The candidate with the most votes will win. Party petitions, special runoff elections, and other parts of the prior election system would return.
Campaign finance rules would also return to the way they were in the prior election system. This act would remove the limits on donations to joint campaigns for governor and lieutenant governor. It would remove limits and disclosure rules under current law, including for digital ads, out-of-state donations, undisclosed donations, and the true source of donations. It would remove some fines and change the meaning of a campaign expenditure.
Second, the language proposed in the lawsuit:
An Act Restoring Political Party Primaries and Single-Choice General Elections, and Repealing Certain Campaign Disclosure Requirements and Fines
This Act would get rid of open primary elections, where all candidates appear on one ballot. It would get rid of ranked-choice general elections. It would replace them with political party primaries and single-choice general elections. This Act would also repeal certain campaign finance disclosure requirements and get rid of or reduce some fines for violations.
In the primary election, voters would choose one party’s ballot and vote only for candidates from that party. Political parties would be given the power to prohibit voters who are not registered members of their party, including Nonpartisan and Undeclared voters, from voting in their primaries. The winning candidate from each primary would be the party’s nominee. In the General Election, voters would vote for only one candidate. The candidate receiving the most votes would win, whether or not that candidate has a majority of the votes cast for the race.
This Act would end the ban on dark money by getting rid of the requirement that independent expenditure groups report the true sources of their contributions. It would also get rid of the requirement that such groups, when they are funded mostly by out of state money, disclose that fact in their ads.
Finally, it would get rid of or reduce the fines for some campaign finance violations.