By SUZANNE DOWNING
The Democrat-heavy political network that helped enact Alaska’s jungle primary and ranked-choice voting system in 2020 is back in court, this time asking a judge to rewrite the state’s official ballot language for the second attempt at repealing the measure, which has already qualified for the 2026 ballot.
In a complaint filed in Anchorage Superior Court, plaintiffs Sen. Cathy Giessel, AFL-CIO President Joelle Hall, and Wáahlaal Gidaag Barbara Blake sued the Alaska Division of Elections, Director Carol Beecher, and Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom, arguing the ballot title and summary for initiative petition 24ESEG are not “true” or “impartial” as required by Alaska law and the state constitution.
The lawsuit comes as supporters of the current system prepare for a second straight repeal attempt. In 2024, a repeal measure failed after a recount by 743 votes statewide, a margin that shows just how close Alaska is to reversing course this year.
The 2026 repeal initiative, 24ESEG, cleared the legal threshold to go before voters late last year. Lt. Gov. Dahlstrom’s office announced on Dec. 31, 2025 that the petition had been properly filed and described the proposal as repealing Alaska’s nonpartisan top-four primary and ranked-choice general election system in favor of political party primaries and single-choice general elections, along with changes to campaign finance rules.
Giessel, Hall, and Blake say the problem now is how the state is describing the repeal on the ballot. The complaint quotes the lieutenant governor’s proposed ballot title and summary, which begin: “An Act Restoring Political Party Primaries, Single-Choice General Elections, and Campaign Finance Rules,” and states the act would “get rid of open primary elections and ranked-choice general elections,” “bring back political party primaries and single-choice general elections,” and “bring back campaign finance rules.”
The plaintiffs argue that wording is misleading, incomplete, and politically loaded. Their filing claims the phrase “restoring” or “bringing back” campaign finance rules is “patently false” because, in their view, 24ESEG would not add or restore disclosure requirements but would instead repeal a series of campaign-finance disclosure and disclaimer provisions adopted as part of the 2020 elections overhaul — including provisions dealing with “dark money,” “true source” reporting, on-ad disclaimers, certain out-of-state funding disclaimers, and enhanced penalties.
They also argue the proposed summary fails to clearly explain to voters what a return to party primaries could mean for Alaska’s large bloc of nonpartisan and undeclared voters. The complaint contends the measure would allow political parties to restrict primary participation to registered party members, potentially excluding nonpartisan and undeclared voters from voting in party primaries, even though those primaries are run at public expense.
In addition, the suit challenges what it calls “partisan suasion,” language that repeatedly implies Alaska would return to a more normal or familiar system by stating elections would occur “as they did before,” or that “other parts of the prior election system would return.” The plaintiffs argue that framing is pejorative and confusing, particularly for newer voters who have only voted under the current system.
In their press release announcing the lawsuit, the plaintiffs cast the fight as one over voter clarity, not whether the repeal measure itself should pass. “Voters deserve transparency in elections. The language explaining what they’re voting on must be simple, complete, and impartial,” Giessel said, arguing the current ballot language does not adequately describe impacts on disclosure laws, open primaries, and ranked-choice voting.
The complaint asks the court to declare the current ballot language unlawful and order state elections officials to withdraw it and replace it with language that “faithfully describes” what the repeal would do. The plaintiffs included their own proposed replacement title and summary in the filing, spelling out more directly that the measure would repeal certain disclosure requirements and fines and could allow parties to prohibit nonmembers, including nonpartisan and undeclared voters, from voting in primaries, something that is patently false.
The lawsuit is signed by attorneys Scott Kendall and Samuel Gottstein, both well-known in Alaska election litigation and campaigns. Kendall was the architect of the novel voting method and was part of Alaskans for Better Elections when it pushed the measure on Alaskans and, with outside dark money, convinced voters to approve it.
The court challenge ensures that the 2026 fight over Alaska’s election system will begin long before ballots are printed. With the 2024 repeal attempt decided by hundreds of votes, both camps are treating every edge — including the exact wording voters read in the voting booth — as potentially decisive.
