The Last Frontier might be the next frontier for state election law

The U.S. Constitution gives state governments a wide range of discretion when crafting the time, place, and manner in which to conduct elections. Throughout our history, states have used this authority to both suppress and enhance the voices of their citizens through reforms in their electoral processes. Recently, the Alaska Supreme Court has issued two decisions which could revolutionize democracy in their state and should serve to reaffirm pro-democracy efforts in other states around the country in which advocates aim to improve representation. 

The first decision came last year, in Kohlhaas v. Alaska (contemporaneous FairVote coverage can be found here, here, and here). In that case, the court held that single-winner ranked choice voting (“RCV”) is a valid election reform under the Alaska state constitution. The majority systematically addressed each challenge to the voter-enacted reform, explaining how RCV is in line with a constitutional provision requiring that the governor be elected by “receiving the greatest number of votes.” The court went on to dispel myths about RCV, finding that, “except in the rare instance of a tie, ranked-choice voting will always produce a winning candidate” and “with ranked-choice voting, the vote count is not final after the first round of tabulation.” 

Just like in single-choice voting, under single-winner RCV, the court reasoned that each voter is afforded a single and equal opportunity to express their preferences. After full tabulation is complete, all voters have a single vote which is counted for a single candidate, and the candidate “receiving the greatest number” of such votes is elected. The difference is simply that RCV ballots contain more information than single-choice ballots. This decision is the most direct affirmation of RCV under language that is found in many state constitutions across the country.

The second decision worth noting came last month in a political gerrymandering case. In a  landmark ruling, the court affirmed, “we expressly recognize that partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional under the Alaska Constitution.” As in the RCV case above, the court engaged in a highly state-specific legal analysis of the relevant law, noting, importantly, that “Alaska’s fair representation standard is stricter than the federal standard because Alaska’s equal protection clause requires a more demanding review than its federal analog.” The court went on to describe the analysis, under Alaska case law, for assessing a redistricting plan, which includes considering the plaintiff’s constitutional interests, the purpose of the state’s actions, and the relationship between the state’s purpose and actions. 

Specifically, the court reviewed the proposed redistricting scheme for evidence of intentional discrimination against a particular geographic area, such as the use of a secretive process to determine districts, boundaries that meander around or through political subdivisions or communities of interest, or justification based on partisanship. Based on these factors, the court found that the Alaska Redistricting Board undermined the fundamental fairness of the electoral process, and joined state courts in Florida, Maryland, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania in providing remedies for citizens impacted by political gerrymandering. 

Taken together, these two decisions represent important legal foundations for core issues for FairVote, and support for the policies – ranked choice voting and fair districting – found in the Fair Representation Act. But in the immediate, they have the potential to improve Alaska’s democracy (and are already doing so) –  allowing for the opinions of average Alaskans to be accurately and fairly heard at both the state and federal levels , creating a more healthy political landscape, and fostering more representative governance.