Alaska Ballot Measure 2, Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Laws Initiative (2020)

Alaska Ballot Measure 2
Election date November 3, 2020
Topic Electoral systems
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens
List of Alaska measuresAlaska Ballot Measure 1Alaska Ballot Measure 2Submit

Alaska Ballot Measure 2, the Alaska Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Laws Initiative, was on the ballot in Alaska as an indirect initiated state statute on November 3, 2020. Ballot Measure 2 was approved.

A "yes" vote supported making changes to Alaska's election policies, including: requiring persons and entities that contribute more than $2,000 that were themselves derived from donations, contributions, dues, or gifts to disclose the true sources (as defined in law) of the political contributions; replacing partisan primaries with open top-four primaries for state executive, state legislative, and congressional offices; and establishing ranked-choice voting for general elections, including the presidential election, in which voters would rank the candidates.

A "no" vote opposed the ballot initiative to change several of Alaska's election policies, including the adoption of top-four primaries, ranked-choice voting for general elections, and new campaign finance disclosure requirements.

Election results

Alaska Ballot Measure 2
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		174,032	50.55%
No		170,251	49.45%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Aftermath

Kohlhaas v. Alaska

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Does Ballot Measure 2 violate plaintiffs' rights to free political association, free speech, and due process?
Court: Alaska Supreme Court
Ruling: Ballot Measure 2 did not violate plaintiffs' rights; political parties can choose their preferred candidates through various means
Plaintiff(s): Scott Kohlhaas, Alaskan Independence Party, Robert M. Bird, and Kenneth P. Jacobus	Defendant(s): State of Alaska, Office of Lieutenant Governor Division of Elections, Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer, and Director Gail Fenumiai

  Source: Alaska Supreme Court

On December 1, 2020, the Alaskan Independence Party, Scott Kohlhaas, Robert M. Bird, and Kenneth P. Jacobus sued the state in superior court to declare Ballot Measure 2 as unconstitutional. Plaintiffs argued that Ballot Measure 2 violated their rights to free political association, free speech, and due process under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1 of the Alaska Constitution.

On July 29, 2021, Judge Gregory Miller issued an opinion upholding Ballot Measure 2. He wrote that plaintiffs had "not met their burden of showing that any part of the new law is unconstitutional on its face."

The decision was appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case on January 18, 2022. On January 19, the Alaska Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling but said an opinion would be issued at a later date.

The Alaska Supreme Court released an unanimous opinion finding Ballot Measure 2 constitutional. Regarding the argument that Ballot Measure 2 violated free political association, the opinion said, "Political parties do not have a right to control the State’s primary elections. ... Initiative 2’s nonpartisan open primary places no burden on political parties’ associational rights precisely because it decouples the State’s election system from political parties’ process of selecting their standard bearers. ... Now they can select their preferred candidate through whatever mechanism they desire and are under no obligation to allow participation by voters they do not want. If a political party would like to choose the candidate that best represents its platform by primary election, caucus, or straw poll, it is entirely free to do so. The party can then throw whatever support it can muster behind that candidate’s election bid. The parties’ nomination process stands apart from the primary election, which serves merely to winnow the field of candidates to a manageable number for the general election."

Lawsuit in federal court over donor disclosure provisions

On April 7, 2022, several political donors and independent expenditure groups filed a federal lawsuit alleging that certain campaign finance disclosure provisions of Ballot Measure 2 are unconstitutional and violate the First Amendment. The lawsuit challenged the provision requiring persons and entities that make political contributions of more than $2,000 that were themselves derived from donations, contributions, dues, or gifts to disclose the true sources (as defined in law) of the political contributions. It also challenged the provision requiring disclaimers on political communications and ads identifying any out-of-state contributors that funded the communications and ads.

The lawsuit named the members of the Alaska Public Offices Commission in their official capacity as defendants. It named the following plaintiffs: Doug Smith of Anchorage, a spokesperson for the Liberty Justice Center; Robert Griffin; Allen Vezey; Albert Haynes; Trevor Shaw; the Alaska Free Market Coalition; and Families of the Last Frontier.

On July 14, 2022, a federal judge denied the request to block the campaign finance provisions of Ballot Measure 2. U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason said in a written ruling that in the context of U.S. elections, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that "lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter ... election rules on the eve of an election," and that the plaintiffs “waited over one year to seek preliminary injunctive relief.”

Overview

What election policies did this ballot initiative change?

See also: Details on the ballot initiative's provisions

Ballot Measure 2 made changes to Alaska's election policies, including:

• requiring persons and entities that contribute more than $2,000 that were themselves derived from donations, contributions, dues, or gifts to disclose the true sources (as defined by Measure 2) of the political contributions;
• replacing partisan primaries with open top-four primaries for state executive, state legislative, and congressional offices; and
• establishing ranked-choice voting for general elections, including for presidential elections, in which voters can rank the candidates that succeeded from the primaries.

How were top-four primaries and ranked-choice voting designed to work in Alaska?

Alaska became the first state to adopt top-four primaries for state executive, state legislative, and congressional offices. Under Ballot Measure 2, candidates run in a single primary election, regardless of a candidate's party affiliation. The four candidates that receive the most votes advance to the general election. As of 2020, California and Washington used a top-two system for primaries.

At the general election, voters elect state and federal candidates using ranked-choice voting. For state executive, state legislative, and congressional elections, voters rank the four candidates that advanced from their top-four primaries. A candidate needs a simple majority of the vote (50%+1) to be declared the winner of an election. If no candidate wins a simple majority of the vote, the candidate with the fewest votes would be eliminated. People who voted for that candidate as their first choice would have their votes redistributed to their second choice. The tabulation process would continue as rounds until there are two candidates remaining, and the candidate with the greatest number of votes would be declared the winner.

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding the ballot initiative?

See also: Campaign finance

Alaskans for Better Elections led the campaign in support of Ballot Measure 2. The campaign's committees had raised $6.8 million, with contributions from several organizations that seek to change election policies. Unite America provided $3.4 million, and Action Now Initiative contributed $2.9 million. Former Rep. Jason Grenn (I-22) was chairperson of the campaign. Bruce Botelho (D), the former mayor of Juneau, Alaska, and Bonnie Jack (R) were co-chairs of the campaign. Green described the ballot initiative as "kind of a three-pronged attack on making our elections better.”

Defend Alaska Elections led campaign in opposition to Ballot Measure 2. Defend Alaska Elections, along with the Protect Our Elections PAC, had raised $579,426. The State Republican Leadership Committee contributed $150,000 and the Alaska Republican Party provided $50,000 to Defend Alaska Elections. John Sturgeon, the chairperson of Defend Alaska Elections, described Ballot Measure 2 as “a 25-page-long mess that isn’t fair, democratic, or needed.”

Initiative design

Click on the arrows (▼) below for summaries of the different provisions of the ballot initiative.

Changes to campaign finance laws: creating new disclosure requirements regarding contribution sources

Requirement to disclose the true sources of political contributions

The ballot initiative was designed to require persons and entities that contribute more than $2,000 per year from funds that were themselves derived from donations, contributions, dues, or gifts to disclose the true sources of the political contributions. The ballot initiative would define true sources as persons and entities whose contributions are derived from wages, investment income, inheritance, or revenue from selling goods or services. Organizations that receive less than $2,000 in dues or contributions per person per year would be considered the true source.

Penalities for failure to disclose true sources

The ballot initiative would penalize contributors and intermediaries that misreport or fail to report the true sources of contributions. Penalties would be as follows:

• delays in reporting true sources: penalized not more than $1,000 for each delinquent day

• misreporting or failing to disclose true sources: penalized not more than the contribution's amount

• intentional misreporting or failing to disclose true sources: penalized not more than three times the contribution's amount

Contributors who are penalized under the ballot initiative would have a right to appeal to the Alaska Superior Court.

Statements about out-of-state donors on political communications

The ballot initiative would require that political communications that are paid for by outside-funded entities include the following statement: "A MAJORITY OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO (OUTSIDE-FUNDED ENTITY’S NAME) CAME FROM OUTSIDE THE STATE OF ALASKA." The ballot initiative would define outside-funded entities as entities that make independent expenditures in candidate elections and that received more than 50 percent of their aggregate contributions during the past year from true sources that resided or had their principal place of business outside of Alaska.

Contributions cap on joint governor and lieutenant governor campaigns

The ballot initiative would create a cap on contributions made to joint campaigns for governor and lieutenant governor at $1,000 per year for individuals and $2,000 per year for groups.

Adoption of top-four primaries: replace partisan primaries with top-four primaries for state and congressional offices

The ballot initiative would replace partisan primary elections with top-four primary elections for state executive, state legislative, and congressional offices.

As of 2020 in Alaska, primary elections were used to determine the nominees for political parties in advance of a general election. State law allowed political parties to decide whether to operate their primaries as open or closed. An open primary is any primary election in which a voter does not have to formally affiliate with a political party in order to vote in its primary. A closed primary is a type of primary election in which a voter must affiliate formally with a political party in advance of the election date in order to participate in that party's primary.

The ballot initiative would require candidates, regardless of their party affiliation, to run in the same primary election for state executive, state legislative, and congressional offices. Voters, regardless of their party affiliation, would all vote in the same primary election.

On the top-four primary ballot, candidates that are registered with a political party could have the party designated after their name, upon their request. Candidates would also be allowed to request that nonpartisan or undeclared be placed after their name. If the candidate did not request any designation, the candidate would have undeclared placed after the candidate's name.

Under the top-four primary system, the four candidates that receive the greatest number of votes would move on to the general election.

Adoption of ranked-choice voting: use ranked-choice voting in general elections for state, congressional, and presidential offices

The ballot initiative would adopt ranked-choice voting for the state, congressional, and presidential elections on general election ballots.

As of 2020 in Alaska, the candidate who receives a plurality of votes is declared the winner of an election. The candidate need not win an outright majority to be elected. This system is sometimes referred to as plurality voting, first-past-the-post, or winner-take-all. This is the most common voting system used in the United States.

Under the ballot initiative, voters rank the candidates for a given office by preference on their ballots. A candidate would need a simple majority of the vote (50%+1) to be declared the winner of an election. If no candidate wins a simple majority of the vote, the candidate with the fewest votes would be eliminated. People who voted for that candidate as their first choice would have their votes redistributed to their second choice. The tabulation process would continue as rounds until there are two candidates remaining, and the candidate with the greatest number of votes would be declared the winner.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

An Act Replacing the Political Party Primary with an Open Primary System and Ranked-Choice General Election, and Requiring Additional Campaign Finance Disclosures

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:

“

This act would get rid of the party primary system, and political parties would no longer select their candidates to appear on the general election ballot. Instead, this act would create an open nonpartisan primary where all candidates would appear on one ballot. Candidates could choose to have a political party preference listed next to their name or be listed as “undeclared” or “nonpartisan.” The four candidates with the most votes in the primary election would have their names placed on the general election ballot. This act would establish ranked-choice voting for the general election. Voters would have the option to “rank” candidates in order of choice. Voters would rank their first choice candidate as “1”, second choice candidate as “2”, and so on. Voters “1” choice would be counted first. If no candidate received a majority after counting the first-ranked votes, then the candidate with the least amount of “1” votes would be removed from counting. Those ballots that ranked the removed candidate as "1" would then be counted for the voters' “2” ranked candidate. This process would repeat until one candidate received a majority of the remaining votes. If voters still want to choose only one candidate, they can. This act would also require additional disclosures for contributions to independent expenditure groups and relating to the sources of contributions. It would also require a disclaimer on paid election communications by independent expenditure groups funded by a majority of out of state money. Should this initiative become law?

”

Full text

The full text of the ballot initiative is below:

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The lieutenant governor wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 18, and the FRE is 7. The word count for the ballot title is 23, and the estimated reading time is 6 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 10.5, and the FRE is 51. The word count for the ballot summary is 240, and the estimated reading time is 1 minute, 4 seconds.

Support

Alaskans for Better Elections, also known as Yes on 2 for Better Elections, led the campaign in support of the ballot initiative. Former Rep. Jason Grenn (I-22) was chairperson of the campaign. Bruce Botelho (D), the former mayor of Juneau, Alaska, and Bonnie Jack (R) were co-chairs of the campaign. Green described the ballot initiative as "kind of a three-pronged attack on making our elections better."

Supporters

Officials

• State Senator Tom Begich (D)
• Speaker of the House Bryce Edgmon (Independent)
• State Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins (D)
• State Representative Daniel Ortiz (Independent)
• State Representative Louise Stutes (R)
• State Representative Adam Wool (D)

Former Officials

• Former State Representative Jason Grenn (Independent)
• Former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld (R)

Political Parties

• Libertarian Party of Alaska

Organizations

• Action Now Initiative
• American Promise
• Democracy for America
• FairVote Action Fund
• League of Women Voters of Alaska
• Represent.Us
• Unite America

Arguments

• Drew Penrose, a legal and policy director for FairVote: "Having multiple viewpoints, more than two viewpoints present in the general election, is something that people probably want everywhere. And if there are multiple groups operating within the label of Republican, then it seems like providing a way for those to be expressed in the general election could have real value."
• Jon Briggs Watts, chairperson of the Alaska Libertarian Party: "The most important part of the initiative, the section that draws Alaska’s libertarians and so many others to its support, is ranked choice voting. Under our current system, voters are trapped in an endless cycle of voting for what they consider to be the lesser evil. Voting their conscience or for a candidate they truly prefer is not an option for most, as they are told they are 'stealing' votes from one of the two old parties. This causes a forced choice between two undesirable candidates - therefore many choose not to vote at all."
• Jason Grenn, Bruce Botelho, and Bonnie Jack, co-chairs of Alaskans for Better Elections: "The initiative includes common sense reforms to improve the electoral process and encourage more responsive and responsible governance. ... First, the initiative puts an end to dark money. We deserve to know whose money is being used to try to influence the outcome of our elections. ... Second, the initiative would establish an open primary system for all political parties. Our current primary system is hyper-partisan and denies voters real choices – and yet it’s paid for with taxpayer money. ... Finally, the initiative would allow voters to rank candidates in order of preference and ensure that the winner is the candidate with a majority of voter support. Ranked-choice voting is a commonsense reform that saves money, makes elections more inclusive, and discourages negative campaigning."
• Former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld (R), who ran for president as a Republican in 2020 and vice president as a Libertarian in 2016: "And despite the misleading claims that opponents of the measure have made, party affiliations can still be clearly listed next to each candidate’s name. It merely provides voters with more choices and avoids the need for a write-in campaign like U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski won in 2010. ... Rank choice voting allows voters to express their preferences more clearly and ensures the final winner has the support of the majority of the voters. Under the existing system, candidates often win elections in Alaska with the backing of far less than a majority of the electorate. In fact, no U.S. Senate candidate has captured more than 50 percent of the vote in the general election since 2002."
• Kiera O’Brien, the founder and president of Young Conservatives for Carbon Dividends: "Ballot Measure 2 make three critical reinforcements to our elections infrastructure. It would illuminate dark money’s influence by requiring any group that receives over half its funding from outside Alaska to provide a disclaimer on all public communications. It also implements an open primary system. Currently you have to choose one of two partisan ballots or have a declared party affiliation to vote in the primaries—effectively disenfranchising more than 60% of Alaskans during the primary process. Removing that many people when choosing candidates for office results in a badly skewed field. Finally, ballot measure two invokes ranked choice voting, ensuring that any primary candidate elected has received over 50% of the vote. These three reforms will support candidates who are genuinely for Alaska in all its uniqueness and with all its concerns."
• Speaker of the House Speaker of the House (I): "As a political independent and the leader of a bipartisan coalition, there’s no question that legislators are at their best when they’re able to put party politics aside. The reforms in Ballot Measure 2 will make it easier for everyone to work together to protect and improve all Alaskans’ way of life."
• Kimberly Y. Waller, founder of the Women’s Power League of Alaska: "Although ranking may sound complicated, it is a very straightforward and normal way of making decisions — and far more empowering than the limit of a single choice. For example, parents who ask for their children’s input on where to order take-out may end up with three different answers. The natural way to fix this is to ask the kiddos for their second choice to arrive at a consensus that pleases at least two of them. Ranked-choice voting works this way, enabling every voter to choose their top candidate and ensuring that the winning candidate is favored by a majority. Voters can still choose to vote for only one candidate just like they always have. But a ranked-choice ballot also gives them an option to indicate their second and third choices."

Official arguments

The following is the argument in support of Ballot Measure 2 found in the Official Election Pamphlet:

Alaska Official Election Pamphlet: The Alaskans for Better Elections initiative puts power back in the hands of voters, creating a better Alaska through more open, transparent, and fair elections. We live in a moment where our elections are awash in special interest secret money, where transparency, access, and voter participation are overshadowed by divisive, partisan gridlock. We need a government that works for We the People, not for lobbyists and special interests. Voting YES for the Better Elections initiative will give voters more power in three ways: 1) End Dark Money in Alaska Elections Alaskans deserve to know who is spending money to influence their vote Big-moneyed donors can spend as much as they want to influence our elections - without disclosing where the money comes from. The initiative requires additional reporting for groups that raise and spend unlimited amounts of money. These groups would be required to disclose the true sources behind large donations in real-time. That means no more hidden outside money. 2) Open Primaries to All Alaska Voters Our current primary system is partisan and denies voters real choices, yet it’s paid for by state money. No Alaskan should be denied a vote just because they don’t want to be affiliated with Republican or Democratic parties. Currently, political parties choose who can vote in their primary elections which disenfranchises non-partisan voters. Voters, especially non-partisan voters, are forced to pick between one ballot or the other, meaning only a small group of primary voters end up choosing the candidates that appear on the general election ballot. 3) Ranked-Choice Voting in the General Election Ranked-choice voting is a simple change that gives voters more freedom to choose the candidate that best reflects their positions. Instead of having to pick between the “lesser of two evils,” voters can rank candidates in their order of preference. If a candidate wins a majority of first choices, they win, just like any other election. If not, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated; his or her ballots are counted for their second choice. The process repeats until one candidate receives a majority of votes and is declared the winner. If you prefer not to rank your choices, you can still vote for your first choice as you do under the current system. This simple adjustment ensures that every winning candidate receives a majority of votes cast and helps put the focus back on the issues that truly matter to voters. The Alaskans for Better Elections initiative ensures that every Alaska voter has the right to have their voice heard and vote counted, regardless of whether they think of themselves as Republican, Democrat, or independent. It restores integrity to our elections and gives We the Voters the voice, choice, and power through our votes. Vote YES for the Alaskans for Better Elections initiative. Bonnie L. Jack - Republican - Initiative Co-Chair Jason Grenn - Independent - Initiative Co-Chair Bruce Botelho - Democrat - Initiative Co-Chair

Opposition

Defend Alaska Elections and Protect Our Elections were registered to oppose the ballot measure. John Sturgeon, known for his role in the case Sturgeon v. Frost, was chairperson of Defend Alaska Elections.

Opponents

Officials

• State Senator John B. Coghill (R)
• State Representative Glenn Prax (R)
• State Representative Colleen Sullivan-Leonard (R)
• State Representative David Talerico (R)

Former Officials

• Former U.S. Senator Mark Begich (D)
• Former Governor Sean Parnell (R)
• Former Lieutenant Governor Mead Treadwell (R)

Political Parties

• Republican Party of Alaska

Organizations

• Americans for Prosperity
• Americans for Tax Reform
• Club for Growth
• Republican State Leadership Committee

Arguments

• Glenn Clary, chairperson of the Alaska Republican Party: "It eliminates the abilities for parties to elect their own legislators to go to the general. ... I think it goes against the First Amendment, of the right of association. I believe Republicans, who desire to have a primary of their own, should have that right to have a primary of their own."
• Ann Brown, vice-chairperson of the Alaska Republican Party: "When viewed in practicality, however, this initiative can largely be seen as a plan by progressives to take control of Alaska’s political system. Ranked-choice voting has been implemented in Maine, as well as in municipalities in California and Michigan, locations which can hardly be considered strongholds of conservative political thought."
• Kay Brown, former executive director of the Alaska Democratic Party: "It’s complicated, confusing, poorly explained, and legally flawed. And it needs more work before it’s adopted for use here in Alaska."
• Former Lieutenant Governor Mead Treadwell (R): "Imagine a situation where candidates of the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, the Alaskan Independence Party, even perhaps the Republican and Democratic parties are, after a wide-open primary, not even allowed to appear on the general election ballot. Only four candidates would make it to a general election ballot, in a state which usually has five or more parties. Thus, Ballot Measure 2 restricts our civil right to associate and form a viable party. Sounds hardly constitutional or fair. I’ve worked with Libertarian, Green, and Alaskan Independence Party elected officials during my career, and we already make it tough — perhaps too tough — for newer or 'smaller' parties to put a candidate forward in a general election."
• John Sturgeon, chairperson of Defend Alaska Elections: "Ballot Measure 2, funded by out-of-state billionaires and special interest groups that Alaskans have never heard of, would open the door to a flood of election manipulation and chaos that will disenfranchise thousands of Alaskan voters and weaken trust in our democratic process. ... Our election system isn’t broken, and we don’t need Lower 48 powerbrokers to ‘fix’ it for. Ballot Measure 2 replaces our simple and straightforward election system with a 25-page-long mess that isn’t fair, democratic, or needed."

Official arguments

The following is the argument in support of Ballot Measure 2 found in the Official Election Pamphlet:

Alaska Official Election Pamphlet: The So-Called “Better Elections” Initiative Will Make Alaskans Worse Off As public servants from opposite sides of the aisle, we have had our share of disagreements. But we are united in our belief that the so-called Better Elections Initiative will make elections worse for all Alaskans. This confusing, 25-page initiative will make drastic changes to the state’s election process -- making it more difficult for Alaskans to exercise their right to vote and weakening political participation. Not surprisingly, this initiative is funded by donors who don’t live in our state and won’t have to live with the consequences. Why Our Elections Will Be Worse, Not Better This initiative would replace Alaska’s current primary system--a straightforward process where voters from each party pick their preferred candidate for the general election--with what’s called an “open top-four primary.” This new system, also called a “Jungle Primary,” creates a single primary in which everyone votes, with the top four candidates advancing to the general election. Under this system, it’s possible for four candidates of a single political party to win the primary, shutting out the other political parties from even appearing on the ballot. Whether you’re a registered Democrat, Republican, Unaffiliated or some other registration, this potential lack of representation at the ballot box is deeply disturbing. A New Scheme to Depress Voter Turnout In addition to wiping out the state’s primary system, it would also eliminate our historic general election system in favor of a scheme called Ranked Choice Voting. Right now, the voting process is simple: voters pick a candidate, and the candidate with a majority of votes wins. Under a Ranked Choice Voting scheme, Alaskans are presented with a confusing grid where candidates are ranked. A voter who only picks the candidate of their choice, and declines to rank others, could find their ballot excluded from the final vote count. It’s as though the voter didn’t show up for the election. We Shouldn’t Make It More Confusing to Vote A San Francisco State University professor found a clear decline in minority voter turnout when Ranked Choice Voting was implemented. Not surprisingly, many states and locales that experimented with rank choice voting have since repealed it. When this policy was considered in New York City, the NAACP New York State Conference opposed it, and the chairs of the city’s Black, Latino and Asian caucuses said it hurts “immigrants and communities of color.” Vote “NO” on Worse Elections We want to see more Alaskans show up to vote, regardless of their political party. This ballot measure will have the opposite effect--potentially locking political parties out of the general election, and making Alaskans doubt if their vote even counts. The Better Elections Initiative will only make Alaska’s election system less inclusive, not more. We encourage our fellow Alaskans to vote no. Authors: Mark Begich; Former US Senator Sean Parnell; Former Governor of Alaska

Campaign finance

The Yes on 2 for Better Elections PAC was registered to support Ballot Measure 2. The Alaskans for Better Elections PAC supported the ballot initiative during the signature-gathering phase. Together, the committees raised $6.8 million, including $3.4 million from Unite America.

Defend Alaska Elections and Protect Our Elections were registered to oppose the ballot initiative. Together, the committees raised $579,426, including $100,000 from the State Republican Leadership Committee.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$6,625,065.77	$219,478.56	$6,844,544.33	$6,615,021.76	$6,834,500.32
Oppose	$574,192.93	$5,233.25	$579,426.18	$567,069.34	$572,302.59

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the ballot initiative.

Committees in support of Ballot Measure 2
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Yes on 2 for Better Elections	$5,888,612.77	$195,825.15	$6,084,437.92	$6,151,197.06	$6,347,022.21
Alaskans for Better Elections	$736,453.00	$23,653.41	$760,106.41	$463,824.70	$487,478.11
Total	$6,625,065.77	$219,478.56	$6,844,544.33	$6,615,021.76	$6,834,500.32

Donors

The following were the top-five donors who contributed to the support committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Unite America	$3,396,000.00	$0.00	$3,396,000.00
Action Now Initiative	$2,802,000.00	$127,583.00	$2,929,583.00
Unite and Renew Fund	$300,000.00	$0.00	$300,000.00
4 Score 7	$59,000.00	$0.00	$59,000.00
Represent.Us	$0.00	$52,581.82	$52,581.82

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to the ballot initiative.

Committees in opposition to Ballot Measure 2
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Defend Alaska Elections - Vote No on 2	$573,017.93	$5,233.25	$578,251.18	$565,898.95	$571,132.20
Protect Our Elections No on 2	$1,175.00	$0.00	$1,175.00	$1,170.39	$1,170.39
Total	$574,192.93	$5,233.25	$579,426.18	$567,069.34	$572,302.59

Donors

The following were the top-five donors who contributed to the opposition committees.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Republican State Leadership Committee	$150,000.00	$0.00	$150,000.00
Republican Party of Alaska	$50,000.00	$0.00	$50,000.00
Americans For Prosperity Action	$45,000.00	$0.00	$45,000.00
Club For Growth	$45,000.00	$0.00	$45,000.00
GCI Communications	$45,000.00	$0.00	$45,000.00
Northern Holdings, Inc.	$45,000.00	$0.00	$45,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Polls

See also: 2020 ballot measure polls

Alaska Ballot Measure 2, Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Laws Initiative (2020)
Poll	Poll sponsor	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Claster Consulting (likely voters) 9/22/2020 - 9/27/2020	Alaskans for Better Elections	59.0%	17.0%	24.0%	+/-3.5	803
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

Top-four primary election

See also: Top-four primary

As of 2020, no states utilized a top-four primary for state or federal elections. The ballot initiative made Alaska the first state with a top-four primary system. In a top-four primary, candidates for an office, regardless of party affiliation, are listed on a single ballot. The top four vote-getters advance to the general election.

California and Washington passed ballot initiatives to replace their partisan primaries with top-two primaries, in which the two candidates receiving the most votes, regardless of party affiliation, proceed to the general election. Voters in Florida also decided a top-two primary ballot initiative, titled Amendment 3, at the election on November 3, 2020.

Learn more about top-two primary ballot measures:

Ballot measures related to primary election systems
Year	Measure	System type	Yes votes (%)	No votes (%)	Outcome
2004	Washington Initiative 872	Top-two primary	59.85%	40.15%	a
2004	California Proposition 62	Blanket primary	46.17%	53.83%	d
2008	Oregon Measure 65	Top-two primary	34.06%	65.94%	d
2010	California Proposition 14	Top-two primary	53.73%	46.27%	a
2012	Arizona Proposition 121	Top-two primary	33.07%	66.93%	d
2014	Oregon Measure 90	Top-two primary	31.77%	68.23%	d
2020	Florida Amendment 3	Top-two primary	57.03%	42.97%	d

Ranked-choice voting

See also: Ranked-choice voting

Ranked-choice voting (RCV) is a voting method in which voters rank candidates according to their preference and ballots are processed in rounds. The candidate in the last place is eliminated during each round and the voters' second choices get their votes. The process is continued until a candidate wins a simple majority (50 percent plus one) of the vote.

As of 2020, one state—Maine—used ranked-choice voting for some state and federal elections.

How ranked-choice voting works

Broadly speaking, the ranked-choice voting process (sometimes referred to as instant runoff voting) unfolds as follows:

1. Voters rank the candidates for a given office by preference on their ballots.
2. If a candidate wins an outright majority of first-preference votes (i.e., 50 percent plus one), he or she will be declared the winner.
3. If, on the other hand, no candidates win an outright majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated.
4. All first-preference votes for the failed candidate are eliminated, lifting the second-preference choices indicated on those ballots.
5. A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won an outright majority of the adjusted voters.
6. The process is repeated until a candidate wins a majority of votes cast.

Maine Question 5 (2016)

See also: Maine Question 5, Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative (2016)

On November 8, 2016, voters approved a ballot initiative—Maine Question 5—to establish a first-in-the-nation statewide system of ranked-choice voting. Voters approved the initiative 52.12 to 47.88 percent. Support for the initiative was stronger in southern coastal Maine, whereas the counties along the state's northern border with Canada voted against the measure.

Question 5 defined ranked-choice voting as "the method of casting and tabulating votes in which voters rank candidates in order of preference, tabulation proceeds in sequential rounds in which last-place candidates are defeated and the candidate with the most votes in the final round is elected."

New York City Ballot Question 1 (2019)

See also: New York City Ballot Question 1, Elections Charter Amendment: Ranked-Choice Voting, Vacancies, and City Council Redistricting Timeline (November 2019)

New York City voters approved Ballot Question 1 in 2019, making New York City the most populous jurisdiction in the U.S. to approve the use of the ranked-choice voting election method. Question 1 provides for ranked-choice voting in primary and special elections for mayor, public advocate, comptroller, borough president, and city council members. It allows voters to rank in order of preference up to five candidates, including a write-in candidate. Before the measure, the city’s charter provided for plurality voting, also known as first-past-the-post, and run-off elections, depending on the office and type of election.

Election policy on the ballot in 2020

In 2020, voters in 14 states voted on 18 ballot measures addressing election-related policies. One of the measures addressed campaign finance, one were related to election dates, five addressed election systems, three addressed redistricting, five addressed suffrage, and three addressed term limits.

Click Show to read details about the election-related measures on statewide ballots in 2020.

Election-related policy ballot measures in 2020

Campaign finance See also: Campaign finance on the ballot a Oregon Measure 107: Measure 107 authorizes the state legislature and local governments to (1) enact laws or ordinances limiting campaign contributions and expenditures; (2) require disclosure of contributions and expenditures; and (3) require that political advertisements identify the people or entities that paid for them. Going into the election, Oregon was one of five states with no limits on campaign contributions. Election dates a New Mexico Constitutional Amendment 2: The amendment allowed the state legislature to pass laws adjusting the election dates of state or county officeholders and adjusting office terms according to those date changes. Under the measure, laws proposing adjustments to election dates of non-statewide officeholders must be supported by a legislative finding that such a change would promote consistency or that it would evenly distribute the number of offices appearing on the ballot. Election systems a Alaska Ballot Measure 2: Ballot Measure 2 replaced the state's partisan primaries with open top-four primaries for state executive, state legislative, and congressional offices and established ranked-choice voting for general elections, including the presidential election, in which voters would rank the candidates. Ballot Measure 2 also required persons and entities that contribute more than $2,000 that were themselves derived from donations, contributions, dues, or gifts to disclose the true sources, as defined in the law, of the political contributions. a Colorado Proposition 113: In 2019, the Colorado State Legislature passed a bill to add Colorado to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). NPVIC member states have agreed to give the state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote, provided the NPVIC goes into effect. The NPVIC was designed to go into effect if states representing at least 270 electoral votes join the NPVIC. The campaign Protect Colorado's Vote filed a veto referendum to overturn the law, which resulted in Proposition 113. On November 3, voters upheld the law and voted in favor of adding Colorado to the NPVIC. d Florida Amendment 3: Amendment 3 would have replaced Florida's closed primaries with top-two open primaries for elected state offices. Under Amendment 3, all candidates would have run in the same primary election. The top-two candidates, regardless of their partisan affiliation, would have moved on to the general election under Amendment 3. d Massachusetts Question 2: Question 2 would have enacted ranked-choice voting (RCV) for primary and general elections for state executive officials, state legislators, federal congressional representatives, and certain county offices. As of 2020, statewide elections in Massachusetts used a plurality voting system. a Mississippi Ballot Measure 2: As of 2020, Mississippi required that a candidate for governor or elected state office receive the most votes in a majority of the state's 122 state House of Representatives districts (known as the electoral vote requirement). Ballot Measure 2 repealed this requirement. Instead, Ballot Measure 2 provided that a candidate for governor or state office must receive a majority vote to win and that a runoff election would be held between the two highest vote-getters in the event that no candidate receives a majority vote. Redistricting See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot a Missouri Amendment 3: In 2018, Missouri voters approved Amendment 1, the Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Initiative, which created the nonpartisan state demographer responsible for state legislative redistricting. Amendment 3 repealed the nonpartisan state demographer and returned the state to the use of bipartisan redistricting commissions, with changes to the number and selection of commissioners. The 2020 amendment also maintained the criteria of competitiveness and partisan fairness that was enacted in 2018, but it loosened the partisan fairness requirement and required that population, voter rights abridgment, contiguous districts, simple shapes, and the rules for counties be considered with a higher priority. a New Jersey Public Question 3: As of 2020, the New Jersey Constitution required the state legislative redistricting commission to pass a redistricting plan within a month of receiving the official census data. Question 3 postponed state legislative redistricting until after the election on November 2, 2021, should the state receive federal census data after February 15, 2021. The U.S. Census Bureau asked Congress to extend the deadline to deliver census data from April 1, 2021, to July 31, 2021, due to delays related to the coronavirus pandemic. a Virginia Question 1: Question 1 transferred the power to draw the state's congressional and legislative districts from the state legislature to a redistricting commission composed of state legislators and citizens. Going into 2020, the Virginia General Assembly was responsible for drawing the state's congressional and state legislative district boundaries. The redistricting plans were passed as legislation and subject to the governor's veto power. Suffrage See also: Suffrage on the ballot a Alabama Amendment 1: Amendment 1 amended the Alabama Constitution to state that "only a citizen of the United States," rather than "every citizen of the United States," who is 18 years old or older has the right to vote in Alabama. a California Proposition 17: Proposition 17 amended the state constitution to allow people with felonies who are on parole to vote; therefore, the ballot measure kept imprisonment as a disqualification for voting but removed parole status. Going into 2020, the California Constitution disqualified people with felonies from voting until the completion of their imprisonment and parole. d California Proposition 18: Proposition 18 would have allowed 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of the next general election to vote in primary elections and special elections. a Colorado Amendment 76: Amendment 76 amended the Colorado Constitution to state that “only a citizen”, instead of "every citizen", of the U.S. who is 18 years of age or older can vote in Colorado. Under the Colorado Votes Act, which went into effect in August 2019, individuals who are 17 years of age at the time of a primary election but who will be 18 years of age at the time of a general election were allowed to register to vote and vote in the primary election. According to the Colorado Blue Book, prevents 17-year-olds from voting. a Florida Amendment 1: Amendment 1 amended the Florida Constitution to state that “only a citizen” of the U.S. who is 18 years old or older can vote in Florida instead of saying that "every citizen" of the U.S. who is 18 years old or older can vote in Florida. Term limits and term lengths See also: Term limits on the ballot a Arkansas Issue 2: Issue 2 changed term limits of state legislators to twelve consecutive years with the opportunity to return after a four-year break. The 12-year limit applied to anyone elected in 2021 or after. Going into 2020, Arkansas legislators could serve up to 16 years throughout their lifetimes in the House or Senate. d Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 2: The amendment would have increased the office terms of commonwealth's attorneys from six years to eight years starting in 2030; increased the office terms of district judges from four years to eight years starting in 2022; and changed attorney licensing requirements for district judges from two years to eight years beginning in 2022. d Missouri Amendment 1: Amendment 1 would have limited the lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state auditor, and attorney general to two terms of office in a lifetime. Going into 2020, the state constitution limited the governor and state treasurer to two terms of office in a lifetime but not the other executive offices.

Local ranked choice voting measures in 2020

Voters in five cities in California, Colorado, and Minnesota voted on measures to establish ranked choice voting for certain municipal elections:

Local ranked choice voting measures, 2020
State	Measure	Offices	Outcome
California	Albany, California, Measure BB, Ranked Choice Voting Ordinance (November 2020)	City council and board of education
California	Eureka, California, Measure C, Ranked Choice Voting Charter Amendment (November 2020)	Mayor and city council
Colorado	Boulder, Colorado, Measure 2E, Ranked Choice Voting for Mayor Charter Amendment (November 2020)	Mayor
Minnesota	Bloomington, Minnesota, Question 3, Ranked Choice Voting Charter Amendment (November 2020)	Mayor and city council
Minnesota	Minnetonka, Minnesota, Question 1, Ranked Choice Voting Charter Amendment (November 2020)	Mayor and city council

In March 2020, voters in Portland, Maine, approved a local ranked choice voting measure.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Alaska

Process in Alaska

In Alaska, the number of signatures required for an indirect initiated state statute is equal to 10 percent of the votes cast in the preceding gubernatorial election. Alaska also has a signature distribution requirement, which requires that signatures equal to 7 percent of the vote in the last general election must be collected in each of three-fourths of the 40 state House districts. Petitions are allowed to circulate for 365 days from the date the lieutenant governor issues petition booklets to be distributed for signature gathering. Signatures must be submitted 365 days after the lieutenant governor issued petition booklets to be distributed for signature gathering or before the legislative session begins, whichever comes first.

The requirements to get an indirectly initiated state statute certified for the 2020 ballot:

• Signatures: 28,501 valid signatures were required.
• Deadline: The deadline to submit signatures was 365 days after the lieutenant governor issued petition booklets to be distributed for signature gathering or before the legislative session began on January 21, 2020, whichever comes first.

In Alaska, when enough signatures are verified for an initiative, the initiative is not certified for the ballot until after "a legislative session has convened and adjourned." This gives the Legislature a timeframe to consider the proposal or similar legislation. The initiative is void when “an act of the legislature that is substantially the same as the proposed law was enacted after the petition had been filed, and before the date of the election," according to state law. Otherwise, the initiative is certified to appear on the ballot for the first statewide election 120 days after the legislature's adjournment.

Stages of this initiative

The campaign Alaskans for Better Elections filed the ballot initiative (Petition 19AKBE) with the lieutenant governor on July 3, 2019. Attorney General Kevin Clarkson (R) submitted an opinion to the lieutenant governor recommending that he reject the proposal because the proposal contained three separate issues and therefore violated the single-subject rule. Clarkson said, "The single-subject rule serves an important constitutional purpose in the initiative context by protecting voters’ ability to have their voices heard. But 19AKBE, if certified, would force voters into an all or nothing approach on multiple important policy choices, all of which implicate their fundamental constitutional rights in different ways." On August 30, Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer (R) rejected the proposal.

Alaskans for Better Elections challenged the lieutenant governor's decision before the Alaska Superior Court in Alaskans for Better Elections v. Meyer. On October 28, 2019, Judge Yvonne Lamoureux ruled that the ballot initiative was designed as a single subject—election reform—and could be certified to collect signatures. Lt. Gov. Meyer appealed the decision to the Alaska Supreme Court.

On January 9, 2020, Alaskans for Better Elections filed 41,068 signatures for the ballot initiative. At least 28,501 (69.4 percent) of the submitted signatures need to be valid. Jason Grenn, co-chair of Alaskans for Better Elections, said, "We do have signatures from every (state House) district, all 40 districts. We feel pretty confident that we’re set up." On March 9, Lt. Gov. Meyer announced that 36,006 signatures were verified.

The Alaska State Legislature had the option to approve the proposal or equivalent legislation before the end of this year's legislative session, which adjourned on May 20, 2020. Since neither the initiative nor equivalent legislation was approved, the proposal was set to appear on the ballot for the general election on November 3, 2020.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired Advanced Micro Targeting to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $236,250.00 was spent to collect the 28,501 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $8.29.

Alaskans for Better Elections v. Meyer

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Was Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative based on the single-subject rule incorrect as a matter of law?
Court: Alaska Supreme Court (appealed from the Alaska Superior Court)
Ruling: The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling, deciding that the ballot initiative was designed as a single subject—election reform.
Plaintiff(s): Alaskans for Better Elections	Defendant(s): Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer and Division of Elections
Plaintiff argument: Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative "unlawfully denied Alaskans for Better Elections and the citizens of Alaska the opportunity to exercise their constitutional initiative rights by refusing to certify 19AKBE."	Defendant argument: Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative was correct because the ballot initiative contains three subjects and therefore violates the state's single-subject rule.

  Source: Alaska Superior Court

Alaska Superior Court

On September 5, 2019, Alaskans for Better Elections filed a legal challenge to Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative based on the single-subject rule. The legal challenge was filed in the Alaska Superior Court. "By refusing to certify (the measure), the lieutenant governor has denied the citizens of Alaska the opportunity to lawfully exercise their right to the ballot initiative guaranteed by Article XI of the Alaska Constitution," read the complaint.

Assistant Attorneys General Margaret Paton-Walsh and Cori Mills argued on behalf of Lt. Gov. Meyer, stating that the ballot initiative violated the single-subject rule and that voters would need to vote on each subject as an independent ballot measure.

On October 28, 2019, Judge Yvonne Lamoureux ruled that the ballot initiative was designed as a single subject—election reform. Lamoureux wrote, "Because the primary election, general election, campaign finance, and all other provisions of the proposed initiative clearly relate to the general subject of election reform, there is no violation of the single-subject rule." Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer and the Division of Elections were ordered to approve the proposal for signature gathering.

Alaska Supreme Court

Defendants (Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer and Division of Elections) appealed Judge Lamoureux's ruling to the Alaska Supreme Court. Justices heard arguments on February 19, 2020.

Assistant Attorney General Laura Fox, representing the defendants, asked the state Supreme Court to divide the citizen-initiated measure into multiple ballot questions. Fox said, "We're not saying these kinds of initiatives can't be put on the ballot. It's just that there's no reason, really, that they have to be combined together and bundled together in the same initiative."

Scott Kendall, representing Alaskans for Better Elections, compared the ballot initiative's provisions to Measure 2 (2014), which legalized marijuana in Alaska. Kendall said, "Having to do it on marijuana, for example, through six ballot measures. What if retail sales were approved, but commercial production was not approved? What if a tax was approved, but retail sales wasn't? The system would collapse into itself, and these three pieces are similarly interdependent."

On June 12, 2020, the Alaska Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision, ruling that the ballot initiative did not violate the single-subject rule. Justice Daniel Winfree wrote, "This initiative’s provisions are properly classified under ‘election reform’ as a matter of both logic and common sense. They all relate to the elections process and share the common thread of reforming current election laws. We can logically conclude that the various initiative provisions substantively change (or reform) the state’s elections."

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Alaska

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in California.

How to cast a vote in Alaska

The information below covers regular voting policies in the state. Information may have not applied to the election on November 3, 2020, because of temporary changes in response to coronavirus. Click here to read about changes made for the 2020 elections. Poll times In Alaska, all polling places are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Alaska Time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote. Alaska is divided between the Alaska time zone and the Hawaii-Aleutian time zone. Registration Check your voter registration status here. To register to vote in Alaska, each applicant must be a citizen of the United States, a resident of Alaska, and at least 18 years of age or within 90 days of his or her 18th birthday. An individual convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude may not register to vote until his or her voting rights have been restored. If registered to vote in another state, applicants must be willing to cancel that registration in order to vote in Alaska. To vote in Alaska, registered voters must be at least 18 years old and have been a resident of the state and election district for at least 30 days. Prospective voters can register online, with a paper form, or in person at a Division of Elections Office or a voter registration agency. The deadline to register is 30 days before an election. If submitting an application form by mail, fax, or email, the applicant must provide one of the following forms of identification either with his or her application or when voting for the first time: “ Current and valid photo identification Driver’s license Passport State identification card Birth certificate. ” Automatic registration Alaska automatically registers eligible individuals to vote when they apply for a Permanent Fund Dividend. Online registration See also: Online voter registration Alaska has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website. Same-day registration Alaska allows same-day voter registration in presidential election years, but voters who do so can vote only for the offices of president and vice president. Residency requirements Alaska law requires 30 days of residency in the state and election district before a person may vote. Verification of citizenship See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States Alaska does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. Verifying your registration The site My Voter Registration, run by the Alaska Department of Elections, allows residents to check their voter registration status online. Voter ID requirements Alaska requires voters to present non-photo identification while voting. The following were accepted forms of identification as of March 2023. Click here for the Alaska Division of Elections' page on accepted ID to ensure you have the most current information. Voter ID card Driver’s license State ID Other photo ID Passport Hunting or fishing license If you do not have the one of the identifications listed above, you may present a current utility bill or paycheck, government check or bank statement or other government issued document. These documents must have your current residence address.

See also

2020 measures

• 2020 ballot measures
• Elections and campaigns on the ballot
• 2020 petition deadlines

Alaska

• Alaska ballot measures
• Alaska initiative laws
• Ranked-choice voting

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls
• Ballot measure signature costs

External links

Information

• Alaska Initiative Petition 19AKBE (2020)

Support

• Alaskans for Better Elections
• Alaskans for Better Elections Facebook
• Alaskans for Better Elections Twitter

Opposition

• Defend Alaska Elections