In what some have described as “the biggest win yet for political reform,” voters in Alaska in the 2020 elections adopted a ballot measure that replaced partisan primaries with a “top-four” primary election and ranked choice voting in the general election (the ballot measure also strengthened disclosure requirements for campaign financing in an effort to eliminate so-called dark money from flowing into state elections). In the top-four primary, all candidates run in a single primary, and the top four go on to the general election. One of the arguments for this structure is it will make it more likely that candidates with the broadest appeal to the voters will make it to the general election and not be eliminated through the more traditional party-primary structure. As it turns out, this new election structure could be particularly significant for someone like Senator Lisa Murkowski, who might have broad appeal to Alaskan voters but could face tough sledding (yes, intended) in a closed Republican primary.

Those reforms were challenged under the state constitution, and the case is now pending before the Alaskan Supreme Court.

This is an extremely important case for political reform, particularly for the future of ranked choice voting. The provision in the Alaska constitution under which RCV is being challenged is similar to provisions in many state constitutions. I have filed an amicus brief, along with Michael Parsons and Vic Fisher — the last living signer of Alaska’s constitution, which was ratified in 1956 and went into effect when Alaska gained statehood in 1959. Our brief is based on the article Mike and I published in the California Law Review entitled The Legality of Ranked Choice Voting.

A copy of the amicus brief can be found here.