ELECTION LAW
Margot Graham
In Pruitt v. Office of Lieutenant Governor, 498 P.3d 591 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held the losing House candidate failed to meet his burden to sustain an election contest claim (Id. at 608). Pruitt, a losing House candidate, sued the Division of Elections, claiming that it committed malconduct that influenced the election results by moving a polling place without providing the public with sufficient notice, as required under the law (Id. at 594). After an evidentiary hearing, the lower court held that the Division’s partial compliance with the law did not amount to malconduct and Pruitt did not meet his burden of showing that the conduct would have changed the outcome of the election (Id. at 597). On appeal, Pruitt continued to argue that the Division of Elections’ conduct amounted to malconduct that was sufficient to change the results of the election (Id.). The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that the Division of Election did not commit malconduct because the Division did not have a legal duty to confirm polling places by a certain date, its conduct was not a sufficient deviation from the law, and Pruitt failed to prove bias or scienter on the part of the Division (Id. at 602–06). The court further reasoned that Pruitt’s assertions about the alternative outcomes of the election were mere speculation and, thus, Pruitt failed to show the malconduct was sufficient to change the outcome of the election (Id. at 608). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that the losing House candidate failed to meet his burden to sustain an election contest claim (Id. at 608).
