State, Office of the Lieutenant Governor v. Corbisier

ELECTION LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2022)

Alex Bartlow


In State, Office of the Lieutenant Governor v. Corbisier, 522 P.3d 174 (Alaska 2022), the supreme
court reversed the lower court’s grant of a preliminary injunction preventing the Alaska Division
of Elections from certifying election results, holding that the lower court erred in failing to consider
the general public’s interest in an orderly and timely election when conducting the balance of
hardships test. (Id. at 180). The state sought to conduct a special primary election to fill the vacant
seat for its sole representative in the U.S. House of Representatives. (Id. at 176). Due to time
constraints, the Division of Elections (Division) decided to conduct the special election almost
entirely by mail. (Id.). After failed attempts to reach a compromise regarding the election’s
accessibility for visually impaired voters, the Alaska State Commission for Human Rights sued
the Division, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the Division from certifying the election
results until visually impaired voter accessibility improved. (Id. at 17678). The lower court
granted the injunction, reasoning that the balance of hardships test supported the grant. (Id. at 178).
On appeal, the supreme court, citing precedent, held that the lower court erred in applying the
balance of the hardships test because it failed to consider that the general public, not just the
Division, has an interest in orderly and timely elections. (Id. at 17980). As such, the supreme
court reversed the lower court’s grant of a preliminary injunction preventing the Alaska Division
of Elections from certifying the special primary election results. (Id. at 180).

State, Office of the Lieutenant Governor v. Corbisier

ELECTION LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2022)

Alex Bartlow


In State, Office of the Lieutenant Governor v. Corbisier, 522 P.3d 174 (Alaska 2022), the supreme
court reversed the lower court’s grant of a preliminary injunction preventing the Alaska Division
of Elections from certifying election results, holding that the lower court erred in failing to consider
the general public’s interest in an orderly and timely election when conducting the balance of
hardships test. (Id. at 180). The state sought to conduct a special primary election to fill the vacant
seat for its sole representative in the U.S. House of Representatives. (Id. at 176). Due to time
constraints, the Division of Elections (Division) decided to conduct the special election almost
entirely by mail. (Id.). After failed attempts to reach a compromise regarding the election’s
accessibility for visually impaired voters, the Alaska State Commission for Human Rights sued
the Division, seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the Division from certifying the election
results until visually impaired voter accessibility improved. (Id. at 17678). The lower court
granted the injunction, reasoning that the balance of hardships test supported the grant. (Id. at 178).
On appeal, the supreme court, citing precedent, held that the lower court erred in applying the
balance of the hardships test because it failed to consider that the general public, not just the
Division, has an interest in orderly and timely elections. (Id. at 17980). As such, the supreme
court reversed the lower court’s grant of a preliminary injunction preventing the Alaska Division
of Elections from certifying the special primary election results. (Id. at 180).