ELECTION LAW
Clara Nieman
In State, Office of Lieutenant Governor v. Recall Dunleavy, 491 P.3d 343 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that (1) recall petitions are subject to a notice pleading standard and (2) a petition to recall the governor met that liberal standard. (Id. at 357, 372). Recall Dunleavy filed a recall application with the Division of Elections, which the Division’s Director stated was insufficient and declined to certify. (Id. at 349–50). Recall Dunleavy challenged the Director’s decision in court, and the superior court held that all but one of the recall application’s allegations were legally sufficient for certification. (Id. at 350). The State appealed, arguing that a notice pleading standard was insufficient for recall applications and failed to satisfy statutory particularity requirements. (Id. at 358). The State also argued that the four statutory grounds for recall (lack of fitness, incompetence, neglect of duties, and corruption) had been defined too broadly by the lower court. (Id. at 359–62). The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, expressing concerns that adopting an exacting standard for recall petitions would improperly limit citizen access to the constitutional recall process. (Id. at 357). The supreme court agreed with the State that the statutory grounds for recall were ambiguous, but declined to define the grounds narrowly out of concern for preserving citizen access to the recall process. (Id. at 359). Applying these standards to the four allegations of Recall Dunleavy’s recall application, the supreme court found that each allegation was legally sufficient and satisfied the particularity requirement. (Id. at 362). Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that (1) recall petitions are subject to a notice pleading standard and (2) a petition to recall the governor met that liberal standard. (Id. at 357, 372).
