Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Final ER
Final ER
v.
On Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska
No. 20-cv-173, The Hon. Joshua M. Kindred, presiding
EXCERPTS OF RECORD
VOLUME 1 OF 1
December 1, 2020
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 2 of 139
INDEX
Page
2. Transcript of Hearing
Docket No. 42 (held Aug. 25, 2020) ................................................ 25
9. Amended Complaint
Docket No. 8-1 (filed July 22, 2020) ............................................... 98
2
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 3 of 139
vs.
Defendants.
injunction. 1 Defendants oppose the motion. 2 Plaintiffs filed a reply. 3 On August 25, 2020,
the Court held a hearing and heard oral argument on this motion. The Court has carefully
considered the arguments raised by the parties. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’
motion is DENIED.
1
Docket 12.
2
Docket 22.
3
Docket 28.
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Motion Presented
mail absentee ballot applications to all registered Alaskan voters who have not yet received
one.” 4 Defendants argue that Plaintiffs are not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief on
this matter because they have not met their burden to establish irreparable harm, that the
balance of equities and the public interest weighs in their favor; or that they are likely to
succeed on the merits, or even raise serious questions going to the merits. 5
B. Background Facts
The parties largely agree on the background facts in this case. The global
pandemic caused by the COVID-19 illness has significantly affected life in Alaska since
at least March 2020. Not long after then, public health officials, in coordination with
economic, and social activity with the aim of limiting person-to-person contact in order to
Defendants Alaska Division of Elections (“the Division”) and Lt. Governor Kevin Meyer
(collectively, “Defendants”) have made decisions and taken action regarding the upcoming
4
Docket 13 at 40.
5
Docket 22 at 26–29.
Disability Law Center of Alaska, et al. v. Meyer, et al. Case No. 3:20-cv-00173-JMK
Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction Page 2
Case 3:20-cv-00173-JMK Document 36 Filed 09/03/20 Page 2 of 22 ER-4
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 5 of 139
Alaska’s legislature and the U.S. Congress have passed legislation to address
and provide funds for the State’s COVID-19 responses. 6 Congress earmarked $3 million
for Alaska’s elections via the CARES Act. 7 The Alaska Legislature, in SB 241, authorized
conducting the entirety of the elections by mail, but, as Defendants note, did not require
it. 8 Defendant Lt. Governor Meyer decided that while the State would still maintain in-
person voting in 2020 elections, he would increase efforts and outreach for absentee voting,
or vote by mail. 9
6
Alaska SB 241; U.S. Congress Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES
Act”).
7
Docket 13 at 4.
8
Docket 22 at 7.
9
Dockets 13 at 7; 22 at 7–8.
10
Docket 22.
Disability Law Center of Alaska, et al. v. Meyer, et al. Case No. 3:20-cv-00173-JMK
Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction Page 3
Case 3:20-cv-00173-JMK Document 36 Filed 09/03/20 Page 3 of 22 ER-5
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 6 of 139
Plaintiffs, who are and represent individuals under the age of sixty-five that
also may face high-risk complications from COVID-19, including rural Alaskan residents
with decreased access to robust medical treatment facilities, say that Defendants’ decision
to mail paper absentee ballot application forms only to senior citizen voters is
discriminatory and harmful to them. Defendants justify their decision because only voters
age 65 and older are (1) known to be high-risk as a group, and (2) can be identified from
A. Preliminary Injunctions
right.” 12 As articulated in Winter, the moving party must establish each of the following:
(1) that they are likely to succeed on the merits; (2) that they are likely to suffer irreparable
harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in their favor;
and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Id. However, the Ninth Circuit does
afford a certain level of malleability to this four-prong test. 13 In other words, a court is
permitted to issue a preliminary injunction when the moving party has effectively raised
“serious questions on the merits,” as opposed to the more arduous burden of establishing a
likelihood of success on the merits, so long as the balance of hardships tips sharply in the
11
Id. at 7–8.
12
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008).
13
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134–35 (9th Cir. 2011).
Disability Law Center of Alaska, et al. v. Meyer, et al. Case No. 3:20-cv-00173-JMK
Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction Page 4
Case 3:20-cv-00173-JMK Document 36 Filed 09/03/20 Page 4 of 22 ER-6
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 7 of 139
their favor and they satisfy the other two Winter prongs. 14 Regardless of whether the court
chooses to adopt a sliding-scale approach, the moving party must “make a showing on all
injunction . . . should not be granted unless the movant[s], by a clear showing, carr[y] the
burden of persuasion.’” 16
It also is important to note that a preliminary injunction can take two forms.
A prohibitory injunction prohibits a party from taking action and “preserve[s] the status
quo pending a determination of the action on the merits.” 17 A mandatory injunction “orders
a responsible party to ‘take action.’” 18 A mandatory injunction “‘goes well beyond simply
maintaining the status quo [p]endente lite [and] is particularly disfavored.’” 19 In cases such
as this one, where a party seeks a mandatory injunction that goes well beyond maintaining
the status quo, courts should be extremely cautious. 20 When a mandatory preliminary
injunction is requested, the district court should deny such relief “‘unless the facts and law
14
Id. at 1135.
15
Id.
16
Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012) (emphasis in original) (quoting Mazurek
v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam)).
17
Chalk v. U.S. Dist. Court, 840 F.2d 701, 704 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Heckler v. Lopez, 463 U.S.
1328, 1333 (1983) (a prohibitory injunction “freezes the positions of the parties until the court can hear the
case on the merits”).
18
Meghrig v. KFC W., Inc., 516 U.S. 479, 484 (1996).
19
Anderson v. United States, 612 F.2d 1112, 1114 (9th Cir. 1980) (quoting Martinez v. Mathews,
544 F.2d 1233, 1243 (5th Cir. 1976)).
20
Martin v. Int’l Olympic Committee, 740 F.2d 670 (9th Cir. 1984).
21
Anderson v. United States, 612 F.2d at 1114.
Disability Law Center of Alaska, et al. v. Meyer, et al. Case No. 3:20-cv-00173-JMK
Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction Page 5
Case 3:20-cv-00173-JMK Document 36 Filed 09/03/20 Page 5 of 22 ER-7
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 8 of 139
C. Purcell Doctrine
The right to vote is a foundational and fundamental right, but a federal court
cannot and should not interfere in a state election absent serious and compelling
justification. 22 Federal courts are “required to weigh, in addition to the harms attendant
There are several aspects to litigation relating to election processes that require restraint
from the court: (1) the fact-intensive character of disputes regarding election
administration; (2) the democratic values at stake, which often are accompanied by
impassioned partisan animus; and (3) the procedural posture, which often necessitates
especially conflicting orders, and themselves result in voter confusion and consequent
incentive to remain away from polls. As an election draws closer, that risk will increase.”
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that district courts “should ordinarily not
D. Anderson/Burdick Framework 25
In evaluating voting schemes, the Court “must first consider the character
and magnitude of the asserted injury.” 26 The Court “then must identify and evaluate the
precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its
22
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555, 585 (1964).
23
Feldman v. Arizona Sec’y of State’s Office, 843 F.3d 366, 367–68 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Purcell
v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1, 4 (2006)).
24
Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 140 S. Ct. 1205, 1207 (2020); see also
Short v. Brown, 893 F.3d 671, 676 (9th Cir. 2018).
25
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983); Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992).
26
Celebrezze, 460 U.S. at 789.
Disability Law Center of Alaska, et al. v. Meyer, et al. Case No. 3:20-cv-00173-JMK
Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction Page 6
Case 3:20-cv-00173-JMK Document 36 Filed 09/03/20 Page 6 of 22 ER-8
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 9 of 139
rule. In passing judgment, the Court must not only determine the legitimacy and strength
of each of those interests; it also must consider the extent to which those interests make it
necessary to burden the plaintiff’s rights. Only after weighing all these factors is the
can be justified by important regulatory interests, strict scrutiny is required for more serious
burdens. 28
III. ANALYSIS
analytical path begins with an analysis of the four Winter prongs that Plaintiffs must
establish.
The Court begins with the fourth prong: whether Plaintiffs have established
that an injunction is in the public interest. Plaintiffs initially assert that the State has
repeatedly and consistently advocated for the avoidance of public gatherings in an attempt
However, rather than weave that assertion into part of a detailed legal argument, Plaintiffs
simply conclude: “[t]hus, the public interest tips strongly in favor of providing every
Alaskan assistance in voting by absentee ballot, which will allow Alaskans to express their
27
Id. at 789.
28
Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434.
Disability Law Center of Alaska, et al. v. Meyer, et al. Case No. 3:20-cv-00173-JMK
Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction Page 7
Case 3:20-cv-00173-JMK Document 36 Filed 09/03/20 Page 7 of 22 ER-9
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 10 of 139
voices while also protecting one another from potential exposure to COVID-19.”29
Analysis of what may or may not be in the public interest requires a more thoughtful
consideration of context and nuance. The State acknowledges that its aim is to safely
conduct an election in the midst of a global and grave pandemic. Understandably, the State
and its citizens are concerned about the potential risks associated with voting in person.
While the Court knows rational people can agree that protecting the safety of the electorate
is a worthy endeavor, the State also must consider the logistical realities of conducting an
election. Specifically, and as described above, the State has implemented a number of
policies—to not only mitigate the risk to voters, but also to ensure that the State’s election
While Plaintiffs are correct that reducing the number of individuals who vote
in person is important for limiting the spread of COVID-19, they ultimately fail to provide
any legal argument in support of the proposition that the public interest is served by that
alone. Furthermore, Plaintiffs appear to either ignore the other aspects of conducting a
state-wide election that the State must balance with its attempts to limit the spread of
COVID-19, or they dismiss the rationale provided by the State. Importantly, Plaintiffs
minimize the reality that the State already has provided a path to mail-in voting to all
Alaskans, and that remains true regardless of whether this Court were to grant a preliminary
injunction. In other words, the public interest is served by the State extending the ability
29
Docket 13 at 39.
Disability Law Center of Alaska, et al. v. Meyer, et al. Case No. 3:20-cv-00173-JMK
Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction Page 8
Case 3:20-cv-00173-JMK Document 36 Filed 09/03/20 Page 8 of 22 ER-10
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 11 of 139
to vote by mail to all registered voters. It is less clear that providing written absentee
applications to every voter is in the public interest given the State’s reasonable concerns
sought is in the public interest. 30 Plaintiffs cannot meet that burden merely by providing
the Court what amounts to a platitude and conclusory statement. It is not the role of this
Court to create theories or legal arguments as to why the public interest might be served by
Thus, this Court cannot find that Plaintiffs have met their burden of
B. Balance of Equities
injunction is in the public interest, this Court’s analysis naturally would flow into the third
extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right . . . ” and this Court “must balance the
30
See, e.g., DISH Network Corp v. F.C.C., 653 F.3d 771, 776 (9th Cir. 2011).
31
See Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237, 243–44 (2008).
Disability Law Center of Alaska, et al. v. Meyer, et al. Case No. 3:20-cv-00173-JMK
Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction Page 9
Case 3:20-cv-00173-JMK Document 36 Filed 09/03/20 Page 9 of 22 ER-11
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 12 of 139
competing claims of injury and consider the effect of granting or withholding the requested
ability to vote by mail during a global pandemic. However, again, Plaintiffs fail to provide
any detailed factual or legal argument that supports their contention that the balance of
equities tips in their favor. Rather, Plaintiffs simply conclude that the facts, “coupled with
the right every Alaskan voter has to an absentee ballot, means the balance of hardships tips
This conclusory statement is not only wanting, but appears to this Court to
be fatally flawed. First, it views the balance of hardships in a selective and convenient
and perhaps more damning, Plaintiffs misstate the purported harm. Every voter does have
the right to an absentee ballot. Nothing about Defendants’ actions that give rise to this
litigation alters the ability for all Alaskans to vote by mail. Nor do Defendants’ actions
alter the fact that all Alaskans must apply to exercise their right to vote by mail.
32
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7.
33
Docket 13 at 38; see Docket 28 at 22–23.
34
Docket 28 at 22–23.
Disability Law Center of Alaska, et al. v. Meyer, et al. Case No. 3:20-cv-00173-JMK
Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction Page 10
Case 3:20-cv-00173-JMK Document 36 Filed 09/03/20 Page 10 of 22 ER-12
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 13 of 139
justification for preferring that the majority of Alaskans utilize the online application
apparatus. Plaintiffs fail to meaningfully counter that position, and instead claim that this
that were true, however, courts must give deference to the professional judgment of States
concerning the prudence or efficacy of its approach to conducting elections. 35 Given all
these considerations, Plaintiffs cannot establish that the balance of equities favors granting
a preliminary injunction.
Even though Plaintiffs have failed to establish that their claims satisfy either
the public interest or balance of equities prongs, this Court still is compelled to examine
the first Winter prong: likelihood of success on the merits. 36 For the upcoming election,
all Alaskans eligible to vote: (1) are permitted to vote by mail; (2) must fill out an
application to vote by mail; and (3) can choose among several methods to apply to vote by
mail, including options to complete an online or paper application. Plaintiffs contend that
the State action here, providing Alaskans age sixty-five and older with a written absentee
35
See U.S. CONST. art. I § 4; see also McDonald v. Bd. Of Election Comm’rs of Chicago, 394
U.S. 802, 809 (1969).
36
Although Plaintiffs put forward six separate claims in their opening brief, Plaintiffs “no longer
seek preliminary injunctive relief with respect to their claims under the [Americans with Disabilities Act]
and 52 U.S.C. § 10502,” and, accordingly, this Court will not contemplate the likelihood of success on the
merits for those two claims.
Disability Law Center of Alaska, et al. v. Meyer, et al. Case No. 3:20-cv-00173-JMK
Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction Page 11
Case 3:20-cv-00173-JMK Document 36 Filed 09/03/20 Page 11 of 22 ER-13
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 14 of 139
Treadwell. 38 However, each of those cases is immediately distinguishable from the present
matter. In Reynolds, the Supreme Court considered an equal protection claim relating to a
state’s legislative apportionment arrangement, or, in other words, a state action that served
to dilute the votes of certain voters. In Miller, the Alaska Supreme Court upheld a
challenge to the manner in which the State considered and tallied write-in votes, or, in other
words, the possibility that certain Alaskans would be denied the vote they had submitted. 39
While both cases do stand for the proposition that “the right of the citizens to cast their
ballots and thus participate in the selection for those who control their government is one
of the fundamental prerogatives of citizenship,” 40 neither case necessarily suggests that this
binary construct. The Supreme Court has established and maintained that a deferential
analysis of electoral logistics typically is appropriate because, “as a practical matter, there
must be substantial regulation of elections if they are to be fair and honest and if some sort
of order, rather than chaos, is to accompany the democratic processes.” 41 This Court must
strict scrutiny and, thus, requiring that the regulation be narrowly tailored to advance a
37
377 U.S. 533 (1964).
38
245 P.3d 867 (Alaska 2010).
39
Miller v. Treadwell, 245 P.3d 867, 868 (Alaska 2010) (quoting Carr v. Thomas, 586 P.2d 622,
625 (Alaska 1978).
40
Miller v. Treadwell, 245 P.3d at 868 (citing Carr v. Thomas, 586 P.2d at 626 (quoting Sanchez
v. Bravo, 251 S.W.2d 935, 938 (Tex. Civ. App. 1952)).
41
Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 (1974).
Disability Law Center of Alaska, et al. v. Meyer, et al. Case No. 3:20-cv-00173-JMK
Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction Page 12
Case 3:20-cv-00173-JMK Document 36 Filed 09/03/20 Page 12 of 22 ER-14
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 15 of 139
compelling state interest “would tie the hands of States seeking to assure that elections are
operated equitably and efficiently.” 42 Fortunately, courts have adopted an approach that
where the degree of scrutiny is a product of the “character and magnitude” of the burden
on voting rights. 43 Accordingly, actions that serve to effect a severe burden on the right to
vote will be subject to strict scrutiny, whereas actions that impose tempered or minimal
Before considering Plaintiffs various claims, and whether they are likely to
succeed on the merits, this Court must attempt to quantify the nature or severity of the
burden on voting rights in this case. Although the term “severe” is not clearly defined in
the context of the judicial review of electoral mechanics, the Court can garner a better sense
of the types of actions that have been described as severe or not severe and make natural
and objective comparisons to the present matter. Starting with Burdick, involving a
challenge to Hawaii’s ban on write-in ballots, the court determined that the ban was
constitutional, and that such a burden was both “limited” and “slight.” 45 In doing so, the
Burdick court highlighted that “the function of the election process is “to winnow out and
finally reject all but the chosen candidates,” not to provide a means of giving vent to “short-
42
Celebrezze, 460 U.S. at 788.
43
Id.; Burdick, 504 U.S. 428; see also McClure v. Galvin, 386 F.3d 36, 41 (1st Cir. 2004) (“[T]he
Supreme Court has suggested something of a sliding scale approach and has noted that there is no ‘bright
line’ to separate unconstitutional state election laws from constitutional ones.”) (quoting Timmons v. Twin
Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, 350 (1997)).
44
Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434 (quoting Celebrezze, 460 U.S. at 789).
45
Id. at 438–39.
Disability Law Center of Alaska, et al. v. Meyer, et al. Case No. 3:20-cv-00173-JMK
Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction Page 13
Case 3:20-cv-00173-JMK Document 36 Filed 09/03/20 Page 13 of 22 ER-15
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 16 of 139
generalized expressive function would undermine the ability of States to operate elections
fairly and efficiently.” 46 In Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, the court subjected a
the court evaluated under a flexible standard a California law that required independent
candidates to have disaffiliated from a political party at least one year before running as an
independent. 48 Compare that to Dunn v. Blumstein, where the court applied a higher
standard of review in invalidating a Tennessee law that required a would-be voter to have
been a resident for a year in the state and three months in the county. 49
abridgments different than those that directly impact the right to vote itself. For the former,
courts have almost exclusively applied a lesser standard of analysis. For example, in
Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., the Seventh Circuit weighed the justifications of
early voting restrictions against the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the
plaintiffs. 50 On review, the Supreme Court, considering both equity and efficiency, agreed
that the Anderson-Burdick framework dictated that the legislation in question did not
46
Id. at 438 (citation omitted) (quoting Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. at 735).
47
520 U.S. 351 (1997). Electoral fusion is an arrangement where two or more political parties
support a common candidate in hopes of pooling the votes so that all those parties may secure a controlling
majority.
48
Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. at 736.
49
405 U.S. 330 (1972).
50
472 F.3d 949 (7th Cir. 2007).
Disability Law Center of Alaska, et al. v. Meyer, et al. Case No. 3:20-cv-00173-JMK
Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction Page 14
Case 3:20-cv-00173-JMK Document 36 Filed 09/03/20 Page 14 of 22 ER-16
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 17 of 139
warrant strict scrutiny. 51 Which brings this Court to two cases that arguably are the most
similar to the present matter: Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott 52 and Short v. Brown. 53
state regarding its approach to voting by mail during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although
there were a number of procedural and rhetorical complexities, at its core, the plaintiffs
claimed that Texas’s rules for voting by mail discriminated by age in violation of equal
protection and the Twenty-Sixth Amendment. 54 Texas provides those aged sixty-five and
older with the option to vote by mail, 55 and prohibits anyone under the age of sixty-five
from voting by mail absent presenting a valid justification. Similarly, the plaintiffs sought
a preliminary injunction, which the District Court granted. The Fifth Circuit reversed. In
doing so, the court attempted to quantify the alleged harm as the precursor to determining
the appropriate level of judicial scrutiny. While the court recognized that only allowing
residents age sixty-five and older to vote by mail facially discriminated on the basis of age,
the court concluded that strict scrutiny was not appropriate. The court relied heavily on
statute that denied certain inmates mail-in ballots. 56 The McDonald court noted that
restrictions related to absentee ballots did not restrict the right to vote, because the inmates
in question possessed alternative methods of voting. As result, the McDonald court applied
51
Id. at 204.
52
961 F.3d 389 (5th Cir. 2020).
53
893 F.3d 671 (9th Cir. 2018).
54
Texas Democratic Party, 961 F.3d at 395.
55
Texas Election Code § 82.003.
56
394 U.S. 802 (1969).
Disability Law Center of Alaska, et al. v. Meyer, et al. Case No. 3:20-cv-00173-JMK
Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction Page 15
Case 3:20-cv-00173-JMK Document 36 Filed 09/03/20 Page 15 of 22 ER-17
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 18 of 139
a rational-basis review and upheld the absentee voting restriction. Of particular import, the
court noted that the state “need not run the risk of losing an entire remedial scheme simply
because it failed, through inadvertence or otherwise, to cover every evil that might
conceivably have been attacked.” 57 Resting on the shoulders of McDonald, the Fifth
Circuit concluded that the state “ha[d] a proper interest in helping older citizens to vote,
and its decision to permit them to do so by mail is a rational way to satisfy that “laudable
state policy.” 58 Furthermore, the Circuit Court opined that “[i]f anything, [COVID-19’s]
existence proves the reasonableness of Texas’s approach, given that older persons have a
greater risk of becoming seriously ill or dying from it, as the record demonstrates.” 59
scheme that permitted voters in some counties to receive a mail-in ballot automatically,
ballot. 60 In that case, the Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court’s denial of the plaintiff’s
motion for a preliminary injunction. 61 In doing so, the court first looked to the Anderson-
Burdick framework to determine the applicable level of scrutiny. The court noted that the
California approach made it “easier for some voters to cast their ballots by mail,” but that
the right to vote by mail already existed for all voters. 62 Perhaps most importantly, the
court concluded that “[t]o the extent that having to register to receive a mailed ballot could
57
Id. at 809.
58
Texas Democratic Party, 961 F.3d at 406 (quoting McDonald, 394 U.S. at 811).
59
Id.
60
893 F.3d 671, 676 (9th Cir. 2018).
61
Id. at 676.
62
Id. at 677.
Disability Law Center of Alaska, et al. v. Meyer, et al. Case No. 3:20-cv-00173-JMK
Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction Page 16
Case 3:20-cv-00173-JMK Document 36 Filed 09/03/20 Page 16 of 22 ER-18
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 19 of 139
be viewed as a burden, it is an extremely small one, and certainly not one that demands
serious constitutional scrutiny.” 63 The court gave weight to the fact that plaintiffs failed to
introduce evidence that the state action would prevent anyone from voting and that
plaintiffs failed to cite to “any authority explaining how a law that makes it easier to vote
Based on the relevant case law, this Court can arrive at only one conclusion:
the burden imposed by Defendants’ actions in this matter do not warrant strict scrutiny.
Defendants’ actions abridged the right to vote for Alaskans between the age of eighteen
and sixty-four. It is crucial for this Court to first consider whether the Twenty-Sixth
Amendment is implicated.
Given the fact that all Alaskan registered voters, regardless of age, possess
the ability to vote either in person and by mail, it is clear that Defendants have not denied
the “right to vote” in violation of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment. Thus, this Court must
consider whether Defendants’ actions intend to, or in practice do, “abridge” the right to
63
Id.
64
Id. at 677–78.
Disability Law Center of Alaska, et al. v. Meyer, et al. Case No. 3:20-cv-00173-JMK
Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction Page 17
Case 3:20-cv-00173-JMK Document 36 Filed 09/03/20 Page 17 of 22 ER-19
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 20 of 139
vote. To “abridge” means to “curtail, lessen, or diminish; to reduce the extent or scope
of.” 65 Congress, through the Voting Rights Act, has defined “denial or abridgement” as
that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate
in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” 66 Here, Defendants’
act of sending paper ballot applications to older voters, while doing nothing that would
impede the present ability of voters under age sixty-five to apply for a vote-by-mail ballot,
cannot reasonably be construed as an abridgment. Given that this Court is not convinced
that any Alaskan’s rights have been abridged, it also must conclude that Plaintiffs’ Twenty-
Sixth Amendment claim does not constitute a claim that is likely to succeed on its merits.
Burdick framework, and appear to accept that Defendants’ actions might not constitute a
severe burden. 67 But, then, without citing any cases directly on point, Plaintiffs conclude
that Defendants’ asserted interest simply is illegitimate. Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that
there is “no legitimate state interest in choosing a single age cohort to assist in voting while
leaving out all other cohorts who are equally vulnerable and equally eligible to vote by
mail.” 68 This Court takes issue with several aspects of those contentions.
65
OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (3d ed. 2009).
66
52 U.S.C. § 10301(b).
67
The Anderson-Burdick framework applies equally to Plaintiffs’ claims under both the U.S. and
Alaska Constitutions. See Sonneman v. State, 969 P.2d 632, 636–38 (Alaska 1998).
68
Docket 13 at 24.
Disability Law Center of Alaska, et al. v. Meyer, et al. Case No. 3:20-cv-00173-JMK
Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction Page 18
Case 3:20-cv-00173-JMK Document 36 Filed 09/03/20 Page 18 of 22 ER-20
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 21 of 139
group is contradicted both by the facts in this case and by Plaintiffs’ own briefing.
Plaintiffs repeatedly reference the Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) findings that “risk
increases with age and the presence of certain underlying medical conditions.” 69 As
relevant here, the CDC posts its COVID-19 related data for public consumption, and that
data indicated that death rates are 90 times higher for individuals aged 65–74, 220 times
higher for individuals aged 75–84, and 630 times higher for individuals aged 85 and
older. 70 Thus, it is disingenuous to suggest that Defendants selected people age 65 and
older arbitrarily, or that all other age groups are equally vulnerable. Plaintiffs fairly point
to those Alaskans who possess an underlying medical condition that might make them more
where they can readily, easily, or confidently identify Alaskans who might qualify under
that criteria.
that is, voters under 65 must procure an absentee ballot application on their own initiative,
either via the internet, or some other way—Defendants’ general interest in protecting an
69
Id. at 6.
70
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investigations-discovery/hospitalizatio
n-death-by-age.html.
71
See Burdick, 504 U.S. at 434, 439–40; cf. McDonald, 394 U.S. at 809 (observing that under
rational basis review, “a legislature traditionally has been allowed to take reform ‘one step at a time,
addressing itself to the phase of the problem which seems most acute to the legislative mind’”).
Disability Law Center of Alaska, et al. v. Meyer, et al. Case No. 3:20-cv-00173-JMK
Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction Page 19
Case 3:20-cv-00173-JMK Document 36 Filed 09/03/20 Page 19 of 22 ER-21
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 22 of 139
general election in the midst of a novel and evolving global pandemic suggests an
impossible and unrealistic standard. Courts should “permit[] states to serve ‘as laboratories
for experimentation to devise various solutions where the best solution is far from clear.’”72
Defendants’ actions in this case do not in any way restrict individuals of any
age group from exercising the right to vote, nor do they restrict mail-in voting to any
particular age group. Given the lack of a severe or even meaningful burden, coupled with
COVID-19, Plaintiffs have failed to convince this Court that its equal protection claims are
process under the Alaska Constitution, noting that “[s]ubstantive due process . . . is meant
to guard against unfair, irrational, or arbitrary state conduct that shock[s] the universal
sense of justice.” 73 This Court is not convinced that any aspect of Defendants’ actions
actions here clearly are rational and reasoned. Plaintiffs also contend that because the right
to vote is a fundamental right, strict scrutiny applies. However, as this Court previously
has found, Defendants’ actions do not restrict any Alaskans’ right to vote. The burden here
is so minimal it almost defies precise articulation. It would be illogical under the Anderson-
72
Pub. Integrity, 836 F.3d at 1028.
73
Docket 13 at 31 (quoting Doe v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 444 P.3d 116, 124–25 (Alaska 2019).
Disability Law Center of Alaska, et al. v. Meyer, et al. Case No. 3:20-cv-00173-JMK
Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction Page 20
Case 3:20-cv-00173-JMK Document 36 Filed 09/03/20 Page 20 of 22 ER-22
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 23 of 139
Burdick framework to suggest any standard of review more stringent than rational basis.
This Court previously has concluded that Defendants’ actions are likely to survive a
rational basis review. As a result, Plaintiffs have failed to convince this Court that their
due process claims under the Alaska Constitution are likely to succeed on the merits.
Finally, this Court considers the remaining Winter prong, the likelihood of
irreparable harm. Following the analysis above—that Defendants have not abridged the
voting rights of Alaskans under age sixty-five—Plaintiffs cannot establish that this
injunction would prevent irreparable harm to them and others. In fact, this Court heard
argument that harm would increase—Defendants noted that the Division of Elections may
injunction were granted because the State would anticipate a significant volume of
applications that it would not have the capacity to handle on the necessary timeline. The
Court is persuaded by that concern and finds that the requested injunctive remedy may
Supreme Court precedent, or Ninth Circuit precedent that would suggest that the Court
micromanage Alaska’s election process to this degree. 74 Not only would such an approach
74
893 F.3d 671, 676.
Disability Law Center of Alaska, et al. v. Meyer, et al. Case No. 3:20-cv-00173-JMK
Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction Page 21
Case 3:20-cv-00173-JMK Document 36 Filed 09/03/20 Page 21 of 22 ER-23
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 24 of 139
the conditions under which the right of suffrage may be exercised.” 75 No one disputes that
the right to vote is fundamental. 76 But, as described above, not all election laws impose
constitutionally suspect burdens on that right. Here, where the purported abridgment is so
for this Court to determine that the Winter prongs are sufficiently satisfied.
injunction is DENIED.
75
Lassiter v. Northampton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 360 U.S. 45, 50, 79 S. Ct. 985, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1072
(1959).
76
Harper v. Va. State Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 667 (1966).
Disability Law Center of Alaska, et al. v. Meyer, et al. Case No. 3:20-cv-00173-JMK
Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction Page 22
Case 3:20-cv-00173-JMK Document 36 Filed 09/03/20 Page 22 of 22 ER-24
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 25 of 139
3ODL WLIIV
YV & 6( 12 FY -0.
.(9,1 0( (5 /LH WH D W
RYHU RU RI ODVND HW DO
'HIH GD WV
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
, ,
ROPHV :HGGOH DUFRWW 3&
6&277 0 .(1' //
:HVW WK YH H 6 LWH
FKRUDJH ODVND
(T DO &LWL H V
- 621 6(7 552:
6R WK /D &LH HJD R OHYDUG
/RV JHOHV &DOLIRU LD
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
-
)HGHUDO 2IILFLDO &R UW 5HSRUWHU
:HVW WK YH H
FKRUDJH ODVND
7UD VFULSW 3URG FHG IURP WKH 6WH RJUDSKLF 5HFRUG
ER-25
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 26 of 139
ER-26
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 27 of 139
05 .(1' // HV R U R RU 7KD N R
06 3 721 : /6 HV R U R RU
06 3 721 : /6 HV R U R RU
05 .(1' // HV R U R RU
05 .(1' // HDK HV R U R RU , ZR OG
FR OG
ER-27
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 28 of 139
RWKHUZLVH 0U .H GDOO"
06 3 721 : /6 1R R U R RU
05 .(1' // HV 7KD N R R U R RU
ER-28
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 29 of 139
FURZGV R HOHFWLR GD
RI DJH
ER-29
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 30 of 139
L M FWLR "
DSSO
ER-30
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 31 of 139
OLWLJDWLR
UHPHG "
05 .(1' // 1R R U R RU D G KHUH LV ZK
EDVLV
ER-31
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 32 of 139
VWDWHPH W"
R RU
ER-32
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 33 of 139
R RU
ER-33
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 34 of 139
YRWHUV FD W GR LW FDWHJRULFDOO
V VWHP
VKR OG VH
ER-34
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 35 of 139
05 .(1' // HV R U R RU 7KD N R
GRHV W DSSO
ER-35
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 36 of 139
DSSOLFDWLR V"
WKHP IDVW H R JK
R RU"
ER-36
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 37 of 139
7 ( &2857 HV , DP
D PRPH W
DW R FH
DSSOLFDWLR
ER-37
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 38 of 139
ER-38
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 39 of 139
ER-39
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 40 of 139
R U UDO ODVND V
DSSOLFDWLR V
ER-40
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 41 of 139
JUR S
KHUH
ER-41
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 42 of 139
L SODFH RI UDFH
FR VWLW WLR DO
RWKHU DUHDV
ER-42
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 43 of 139
R U R RU R DKHDG
DV D DEULGJHPH W RI ULJKWV
DFWLR "
05 .(1' // 1R D G , WKL N R U R RU M VW
ER-43
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 44 of 139
LW V D GLVWL FWLR
E W LW LV D DEULGJHPH W
ER-44
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 45 of 139
05 .(1' // , P VRUU R U R RU
7 ( &2857 , P M VW WU L J WR EH FRJ L D W RI
T HVWLR V 0U .H GDOO
D DO VLV"
ER-45
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 46 of 139
LW GRHV WKH IDFW WKDW WKH SODL WLIIV DUH DVNL J IRU
OLWWOH ELW
WKH SODL WLII KDV D HYLGH WLDU E UGH WKDW WKH VLPSO
ER-46
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 47 of 139
WKLV PDLOL J
DUH W
ER-47
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 48 of 139
DZDUH RI LW
D T D WLILDEOH KDUP"
ER-48
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 49 of 139
DYDLODEOH DV SRVVLEOH
ER-49
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 50 of 139
WLPH
ER-50
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 51 of 139
PRPH W
ER-51
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 52 of 139
06 3 721 : /6 1R , GR W WKL N R GR
ER-52
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 53 of 139
ER-53
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 54 of 139
D HOHFWLR ZLWK WKH IDFW KHUH WKDW WKH GLVWL FWLR PDGH
DJH RI "
ER-54
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 55 of 139
GLVWL FWLR UDWKHU WKD DJH GLVWL FWLR WKH IDFW WKDW
YRWH
FODVVLILFDWLR
ER-55
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 56 of 139
HT DO SURWHFWLR D DO VLV
FODVVLILFDWLR
ER-56
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 57 of 139
R RU , GR W ZD W WR HFHVVDULO VD WKHUH LV R
WKH VWUHHW IURP WKH HOHPH WDU VFKRRO WKDW V WKH SROOL J
ER-57
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 58 of 139
FD W IL WKDW
SDUWLF ODU ZD
KHDOWK DGYLFH DW WKH WLPH WKH GHFLVLR ZDV PDGH ZDV WKDW
ER-58
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 59 of 139
WKHLU HHGV
V DO
ER-59
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 60 of 139
R OL H L VWU FWLR V
IL GV R H WR EH FRPSHOOL J D G R H WR EH OHVV
DFFHVV
ER-60
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 61 of 139
WLPH VR WKDW WKH RYHU ZDV D JUR S WKDW WKH &'& ZDV
ER-61
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 62 of 139
SRVVLEOH
FR VWLW WLR V
ER-62
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 63 of 139
GR VR
ER-63
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 64 of 139
FODLPV
L M FWLR
ER-64
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 65 of 139
OHJDO KRRN"
05 .(1' // HV R U R RU R GR D G ,
ER-65
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 66 of 139
DGGUHVVHG LW
ER-66
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 67 of 139
ZKHWKHU WKHUH DUH YRWHUV ZKR KDYH WUR EOH DFFHVVL J WKH
DSSO
ER-67
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 68 of 139
ER-68
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 69 of 139
GR LW
WKL J
ER-69
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 70 of 139
GHU W DW D R R LV
L WKH RWKHU
IL WKH EUHDFK
ER-70
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 71 of 139
RWKL J PRUH WKD OHYHO WKH SOD L J ILHOG IRU DOO ODVND
ZR OG EH FR V PPDWHG 6R NL G RI D PL HG D VZHU R U
R RU E W WKDW V R U SRVLWLR
ER-71
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 72 of 139
R U R RU
06 3 721 : /6 6R , WKL N LW ZR OG EH
ER-72
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 73 of 139
7 ( &2857 ,I , ZDV WR GH
06 3 721 : /6 , WKL N R N RZ , P RW
UHSKUDVH
DGGLWLR DO WLPH
ZRUN
05 .(1' // , GR W EHOLHYH VR R U R RU
ER-73
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 74 of 139
7KD N R
3URFHHGL JV FR FO GHG DW D P
&(57,),& 7(
V 6R MD / 5HHYHV
621- / 5((9(6 505 &55
)('(5 / 2)),&, / &2857 5(3257(5
ER-74
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 75 of 139
KEVIN G. CLARKSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Margaret Paton-Walsh
(AK Bar No. 0411074)
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
1031 West Fourth Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 269-5275
Facsimile: (907) 276-3697
Email: margaret.paton-walsh@alaska.gov
I, Josh Applebee, declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and
correct:
1. I am the Chief of Staff for Lieutenant Governor Kevin Meyer, who controls
and supervises the Alaska Division of Elections. I have personal knowledge of the
2. On July 9 and 10, 2020, the Division mailed absentee ballot applications to
all registered voters aged 65 and older. This mailing went out to 97,281 voters.
apparent in April of 2020, the Alaska Legislature enacted SB 241 to address many
aspects of the State’s response to the pandemic. Among other things, it authorized—but
did not require—the Division of Elections to conduct the 2020 elections entirely by mail.
Office and the Division of Election weighed the current state of the pandemic in Alaska,
months to prepare.
5. In April and May, when daily infection counts were still low in Alaska, the
inadvisable and instead looked at options for increasing absentee voting while not
new online absentee ballot application system with an additional absentee voting
outreach effort aimed at elderly voters, mailing voters 65 and older a paper absentee
officials at the time identified people 65 and older as a high-risk group who must be
particularly careful to avoid exposure to COVID-19. Such voters may therefore wish to
avoid going to the polls, standing in close proximity, and using touch screens or handling
ballots. They may also be less comfortable using—and have more limited access to—the
8. Although the Lieutenant Governor understands that there are other high-
risk groups, the Division of Elections has access only to limited information about voters
and is not able to identify all disabled voters or all those with underlying medical
Division will be conducting regular elections with in-person voting on Election Day
(along with other normally available options such as absentee and early voting) rather
98,500 and the approximate cost of the mailing $49,250, meaning we could use the
“request for quote” process for procurements under $100,000 (which takes 5-7 days)
instead of the longer “invitation to bid” process (which takes 3-4 weeks).
h. On June 24, the vendor reported that it was still waiting to receive
envelopes to complete the mailing. The Division has learned through several sources that
counties and states throughout the country have run into printing supply shortage issues
10. The estimated final cost of the mailing was $.52/piece. The quoted price for
not clear whether any vendor in the state has the supplies on hand to complete a mailing
order of this size right away. And because this mailing would cost over $100,000, state
law would typically require that the procurement be arranged through the “invitation to
12. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on August 3rd, 2020.
KEVIN G. CLARKSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Margaret Paton-Walsh
(AK Bar No. 0411074)
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
1031 West Fourth Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 269-5275
Facsimile: (907) 276-3697
Email: margaret.paton-walsh@alaska.gov
I, Gail Fenumiai, declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and
correct:
1. I am the director of the Division of Elections for the State of Alaska, and I
have personal knowledge of the matters in this declaration. I was first appointed as
director in January 2008 and had worked in the division for approximately 10 years
before my appointment. I ended my first tenure as director in July 2015 and then was
smoothly, but the COVID-19 pandemic has created many new challenges. The Division
must arrange for social distancing, masks, gloves, and sanitizing in over 440 polling
places around the state; recruit election workers to staff those polling places in a year
when far fewer people are willing to serve in this role; create new distanced training to
avoid unnecessary exposure for smaller communities and Division employees; and
adjusting our own internal workplace protocols to protect the safety of Division
3. Alaska is fairly unique among the states when it comes to voter registration
because of an initiative passed by the voters in 2016. The initiative law automatically
registers every eligible Alaskan that applies for a permanent fund dividend to vote. See
Alaskans have been registered to vote by applying for the permanent fund dividend.
4. The State of Alaska also provides numerous ways for eligible Alaskans to
vote, starting with the State’s no excuse absentee ballot system. Any registered voter can
vote absentee by submitting an application starting January 1 of the year in which the
election will be held. Voters can submit absentee ballot applications in person, by mail,
fax, or via electronic transmission or through a new online portal on the Division’s
website. They can request that their absentee ballot be mailed to them or delivered to
them by electronic transmission. But all absentee ballots must be returned to the Division
by mail. The absentee ballot must be postmarked on or by election day, but the Division
strongly encourages submission of the ballot before election day to ensure receipt of the
Division, emailing the Division, or picking one up from a regional office or other location
where they are available. The Division’s regional offices send election packets with voter
registration forms and absentee ballot application forms to over many locations around
the State so they are widely available. These locations include tribal offices, assisted
year the Lieutenant Governor decided to also send absentee ballot applications to all
registered voters 65 and older in light of the pandemic. Moreover, I have directed letters
with absentee ballot applications and a link to the online form be sent to voters in areas
that may struggle to have access to a polling place on polling day for various reasons,
including a lack of available poll workers. Although I am still hopeful to have all
precincts staffed with three poll workers, I want voters in those areas to be aware of the
potential lack of polling place and have information on other methods of voting.
8. For the first time this year, voters can also apply for absentee ballots online
if they have a valid state driver’s license or state identification card. Approximately
95 percent of registered voters have one of these types of identification associated with
their voter record. There is a link on the Division of Election’s home page
(http://www.alaska.gov/). This system saves voters’ time by eliminating the need to print,
sign and mail the application and online applications can be processed faster by the
Division.
significantly more time both because of the transit time in the mail and because of the
added processing time. For each mailed application, an employee has to open the
envelope, date stamp the application, check that the application is complete, attempt to
decipher what is sometimes illegible handwriting, batch and scan them for processing
before sending out the ballots. If the application is incomplete or illegible, a Division
employee attempts to contact the individual to assist in completing the application. This
may sound like it does not take much time but multiply that by 30,000 or more and you
get significant processing times. On the other hand, all of this processing time is
fax, meaning the ballot package will be sent to them by email. The ballot has to be
printed out and mailed or faxed back to the Division on or by election day. This type of
ballot transmission can be requested starting 15 days before election day and up to 5 p.m.
11. There are currently 140 in-person absentee voting locations across the State
where a voter can vote one-on-one with an absentee voting official starting 15 days
before the election and up to election day. An absentee in-person voter’s ballot is placed
in an absentee ballot envelope completed by the voter, and that envelope is reviewed by
the absentee review board to determine the voter’s eligibility to vote before the ballot is
counted.
12. The State also has eight early voting sites open starting 15 days before the
election and up to the day before the election. Early voters’ eligibility to vote is
determined at the time they vote. These sites have ballots for all 40 house districts.
13. Of course, we also plan on having 441 polling places open on election day
to vote in person from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Unlike other states that have drastically cut down
on the number of polling places available this year, we are striving to have a similar
number of polling places available to ensure every voter can vote in the manner they are
comfortable with. In-person voting is also available on election day at the Juneau,
14. For those voters who reside in remote areas of the state where distance,
terrain or other natural conditions deny the voter reasonable access to a polling place or
who have a disability that makes it difficult for them to vote in person, the State
designates these voters as “permanent absentee voters.” This means that, in even-
numbered years, they are mailed an absentee by-mail application. There are over 9,500
permanent absentee voters. Unless a voter notifies the Division of Elections has no way
15. For those with a disability, there is a process to receive assistance with
voting in addition to the permanent absentee voting option. The voter can have a
representative request a special needs ballot starting 15 days before the election and up to
election day. The representative then delivers the ballot to the voter, witnesses the voter’s
signature, and returns the ballot to the Division of Elections. This allows the voter to cast
16. As shown above, the State of Alaska offers a myriad of ways for eligible
Alaskans to exercise their right to vote. To send out paper absentee ballot application
forms to every registered voter would potentially result in major processing delays as the
Division balances putting on an in-person election, offering early voting, and offering in-
person absentee voting. The online application is far superior to the mailed application in
terms of processing times and ensuring voters get absentee ballots in a timely manner.
My goal is to ensure every voter can exercise the right to vote in the way that works best
for them and to have every vote counted. Mailing out absentee ballot applications to
everyone would upset that balance and potentially result in avoidable and preventable
17. The Division has hired additional staff to process the anticipated increase in
absentee ballot applications this year, but it cannot rapidly expand its processing capacity
while maintaining the integrity of the election. Recruiting and training qualified staff
takes weeks—not days—and staff cannot work from home because they must be able to
access the Division’s secure voter database. This means that increasing the number of
staff also requires finding more temporary space so that workers can maintain proper
18. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on August 3rd, 2020.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on August 3rd, 2020, the foregoing document was served on all
KEVIN G. CLARKSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Margaret Paton-Walsh
(AK Bar No. 0411074)
Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law
1031 West Fourth Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 269-5275
Facsimile: (907) 276-3697
Email: margaret.paton-walsh@alaska.gov
I, Anne Zink, declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and
correct:
Health and Social Services. My job duties include providing advice and setting policy on
public health matters. I have been directly involved in monitoring and advising on the
3. The information available on the virus early in the year showed that people
who were older or who had underlying medical conditions were at higher risk for
hospitalization and death from COVID-19. The CDC used the cut off of 65 in their
messaging, while messaging that the older someone is, the higher risk they are.
4. Recently, the CDC has revised its guidance to simply indicate that the risk
for severe illness increases with age, and the most vulnerable age group is now listed as
those 85 years and older. The CDC also lists many other health conditions which can be
5. Despite the change in categorization, the CDC still reports that 8 out of 10
COVID-19 deaths in the United States have been in adults 65 years of age or older.
6. Over the course of this pandemic, other high risk groups have been
identified. These groups have also shifted over time as we learn more about the virus. For
example, asthma was initially considered to put individuals at higher risk because of the
fact that the virus attacks the lungs, but since that time, the CDC has changed this
category to say those with moderate or severe asthma may be at higher risk. The studies
have not been definitive on this subject. Another more recent example is that cancer was
not previously listed but recent data has shown that cancer does present a higher risk for
severe illness.
7. We continue to learn new information every day about this virus as well as
ways to minimize spread of the disease. The most effective ways to minimize the spread
wearing adequate face coverings that cover the nose and mouth.
foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on August 3rd, 2020.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on August 3rd, 2020, the foregoing document was served on all
Scott M. Kendall
Alaska Bar No. 0405019
Samuel G. Gottstein
Alaska Bar No. 1511099
Holmes Weddle & Barcott, P.C.
701 West 8th Avenue, Ste. 700
Anchorage, AK 99501
Phone: 907.274.0666
Fax: 907.277.4657
smkendall@hwb-law.com
sgottstein@hwb-law.com
Jason Harrow
Equal Citizens
3243B S. La Cienega Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90016
jason@equalcitizens.us
Michael Donofrio
Stris & Maher LLP
28 Elm St., 2d Fl.
Montpelier, VT 05602
michael.donofrio@strismaher.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Community Fund, Alaska Public Interest Research Group, Aleija Stover, and
Camille Rose Nelson by and through their attorneys, Holmes Weddle & Barcott,
PC, and associated counsel, hereby file this complaint against defendants Kevin
Meyer, Lieutenant Governor of the State of Alaska, and the State of Alaska,
INTRODUCTION
HOLMES WEDDLE & BARCOTT, PC
applications only to registered Alaska voters age 65 and older, while intentionally
that violates the Alaska Constitution, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, and the Equal Protection and Free Speech guarantees of the U.S.
Constitution.
necessary to run a safe election. Alaska SB 241 § 9 (enrolled March 28, 2020).
4. But instead of making voting safer and more accessible for all voters,
Defendants have instead decided to make it easier for one particular group of
voters to vote by absentee ballot than all others. In particular, Defendants have
Alaska voters who are at least 65 years old, while excluding all other voters.
color of state law, from “denying or abridging” the right to vote by anyone age 18
TELEPHONE (907) 274-0666
FACSIMILE (907) 277-4657
or older “on account of age.” U.S. Const. amend. XXVI. By choosing to mail
applications only to voters 65 and older, the State has made it more difficult for
younger voters to vote by absentee ballot than older voters. This age-defined cut-
off discriminates among voters and abridges the right to vote on account of age in
6. The selective mailing also violates the Equal Protection and Due
Constitution, for instance, provides that “all persons are equal and entitled to
equal rights, opportunities, and protection under the law,” Alaska Const. art. I
§ 1, but the mailing unlawfully and specifically divides the Alaska electorate into
on 2018 demographic data, 77% of Alaskans 65 or older are white, but only 67%
of Alaskans under that age are white. The mailing thus disproportionately makes
protect vulnerable Alaskan voters from COVID-19, the method chosen is not
TELEPHONE (907) 274-0666
FACSIMILE (907) 277-4657
10. The selective mailing does not protect Alaskans under 65 who
a detriment to the Alaskan voters with disabilities who reside in group homes or
institutions where they do not have regular internet access, nor do they have a
form of state identification that would allow them to request a ballot application
contracting COVID-19.2
11. On June 24, 2020 Alaska’s Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Anne Zink,
testified to the Alaska Legislature’s Health and Social Services Committee that
Center for Disease Control has retracted its earlier advice that “mainly those 65
and older faced higher risk.”3 The new CDC guidance puts greater emphasis on
the risks presented by a number of health conditions suffered by young and old
particular to younger citizens, like pregnancy.4 Current incident manager for the
701 WEST EIGHTH AVENUE, SUITE 700
ANCHORAGE, AK 99501-3408
CDC’s COVID-19 response (and Alaska’s former Chief Medical Officer) Jay Butler
TELEPHONE (907) 274-0666
FACSIMILE (907) 277-4657
put it simply:
The selective mailing on its face is under-inclusive of many Alaskans under age
12. Not only are those under the age of 65 also at risk for COVID-19
currently the source of greatest growth for the virus. The majority of new cases
since mid-June have been among Alaskans in their 20s, 30s, and 40s, and case
13. Many Alaskans in rural parts of the state live in communities with
and not sending the application to younger Alaskans in the same household, the
6 https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/2020/07/09/alaska-records-another-near-
record-increase-in-daily-confirmed-coronavirus-cases/.
7 E.g., Alaska Mapping Business Plan, Appendix 2: An Overview of Communities
in Alaska, 49–50 (noting that 79% of Alaska’s communities are considered “rural”
and that “Alaska’s communities are the most remote and rural in the nation”),
available at
https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/Portals/4/pub/AKMBPA2.pdf.
selective mailing is under inclusive even in its purported goal of protecting elderly
Alaskans.
routinely come in contact with Alaskans over the age of 65 and place them at risk
Alaskan voters, which would generally assist in slowing the community spread of
the virus. That omission imperils the health of Alaskans of all ages.
for absentee ballots. However, this portal requires Alaskans know about it, seek
HOLMES WEDDLE & BARCOTT, PC
it out, and utilize it, and so it is unequal to, and no substitute for, the proactive
701 WEST EIGHTH AVENUE, SUITE 700
ANCHORAGE, AK 99501-3408
mailing going to all voters over 65, without any request. In addition, this online
TELEPHONE (907) 274-0666
FACSIMILE (907) 277-4657
respects: First, reliable access to the internet is known to be much more scarce
in rural Alaskan than on the road system.8 Second, this portal relies on Alaska
Department of Motor Vehicle records for verification, meaning that those without
8 Jeannette Lee Falsey, “For rural Alaska broadband, the 'middle mile' is
everything,” Anchorage Daily News, March 18, 2017,
https://www.adn.com/features/business-economy/2017/03/18/for-rural-alaska-
broadband-the-middle-mile-is-everything/ (noting that “Affordable, high-quality
broadband—defined as an internet connection that is faster than dial-up and
always available—remains elusive for consumers in rural Alaska.”)
an official state ID or driver’s license are unable to access it. Many Alaskans in
rural parts of the state do not have such an ID, either because a license is not
to a DMV office.9
Defendants can simply treat all Alaska voters the same, give every Alaska voter
the same opportunities and assistance in voter, and mail an absentee voter
members of the Legislature, Defendants have indicated that “cost is not a factor”
TELEPHONE (907) 274-0666
FACSIMILE (907) 277-4657
in that decision. That indication is correct because the State of Alaska has
9See Joe Vigil, “Mobile DMV service coming to rural Alaska,” KTVA 11 (Jan. 10,
2020), https://www.ktva.com/story/41545129/mobile-dmv-service-coming-to-
rural-alaska (noting that there are only two DMV offices in the Bristol Bay
community, and that “a lot of people don’t have their driver’s license”). See also,
the DMV website currently showing that only approximately 31 communities in
Alaska have local access to DMV offices:
http://doa.alaska.gov/dmv/office/index.htm.
during the pandemic and the estimated cost to send applications to all Alaska
19. The absentee ballot application asks voters whether they wish to
receive an absentee ballot for the August primary election, the October Regional
election.11 Thus, the form can be returned at any time before the deadline for the
thus ongoing.
application “must be received by the division of elections not less than 10 days
HOLMES WEDDLE & BARCOTT, PC
before the election for which the absentee ballot is sought.” But this 10-day
701 WEST EIGHTH AVENUE, SUITE 700
ANCHORAGE, AK 99501-3408
deadline actually violates federal law with respect to the upcoming presidential
TELEPHONE (907) 274-0666
FACSIMILE (907) 277-4657
election, as federal law provides that “each State shall provide by law for the
casting of absentee ballots for the choice of electors for President and Vice
President, or for President and Vice President, by all duly qualified residents of
such State who may be absent from their election district or unit in such State on
the day such election is held and who have applied therefor not later than seven
10 The state of Ohio reports a cost of $1.5 million for their program to mail
absentee ballot applications to all 7.8 million registered voters, less than 20 cents
per voter.
11 See Exhibit A.
to all registered Alaska voters, regardless of their age, in both the primary and
general elections.
PARTIES
and Advocacy System for the State of Alaska empowered to provide legal
profit that advocates for Alaska Native causes, including advocating in a non-
701 WEST EIGHTH AVENUE, SUITE 700
ANCHORAGE, AK 99501-3408
vote in Anchorage. Ms. Stover suffers from chronic severe asthma which she has
been informed by her doctor puts her among the highest risk individuals were she
to contract COVID-19. Ms. Stover is also one of the organizers of “Alaska Mask
Makers” which to date has produced approximately 60,000 cloth masks to help
single significant medical facility, the Maniilaq Health Center. Maniilaq Health
25.27. Defendant Kevin Meyer is being sued in his official capacity as the
redress deprivation under color of state law of rights secured by the United
States Constitution; under the United States and Alaska Constitutions; and
30. This Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
1343 because the claims arises under the Constitution and laws of the United
States. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over
31. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants Meyer and
part of the events that caused Plaintiffs’ claim occurred in this dispute, as well
asjudicial district.
and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
The U.S. and Alaska Constitutions prohibit the State from abridging
TELEPHONE (907) 274-0666
FACSIMILE (907) 277-4657
was ratified in 1971. Its guarantee is unequivocal: “The right of citizens of the
United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied
ratification, the Amendment “guarantees that citizens who are 18 years of age or
Senate Report accompanying the Senate Joint Resolution later enacted as the
for example—in order to exercise their right to vote might well serve to dissuade
31.36. The Amendment’s text was “modeled after similar provisions in the
underscores that the Amendment serves to “do more than just police states’
Sixth Amendment, 21 U. Penn J. Const. Law, 1105, 1161 (“Bromberg”); see also
id. at 1124–27, 1132–34.
16 Eric S. Fish, The Twenty-Sixth Amendment Enforcement Power, 121 Yale L.J.
privilege, etc.); to reduce the extent or scope of.”17 In a related context—the Voting
of citizens . . . in that its members have less opportunity than other members of
Amendment prohibits all practices that affect the right to vote where a
government makes it more difficult or unequal for one group of voters to exercise
their right to vote than another group, if those competing groups are defined by
HOLMES WEDDLE & BARCOTT, PC
their ages.
701 WEST EIGHTH AVENUE, SUITE 700
ANCHORAGE, AK 99501-3408
right to vote.” Hayes v. Municipality of Anchorage, 46 P.3d 971, 974 (Alaska 2002);
see also Kenai Peninsula Borough v. State, 743 P.2d 1352, 1371 (Alaska 1987)
(“[I]t is clear that the right to vote is fundamental.”). Indeed, when it comes to
72. Thus, the State cannot make it more burdensome to vote for eligible voters of
a certain age, race, or residence relative to others similarly situated but for those
characteristics.
Alaska Constitution also provides that “all person are equal and entitled to equal
rights, opportunities, and protections under the law.” Alaska Constitution Art. I
Sec. 1.
that date, he announced that registered Alaskan voters 65 and older will
701 WEST EIGHTH AVENUE, SUITE 700
ANCHORAGE, AK 99501-3408
TELEPHONE (907) 274-0666
FACSIMILE (907) 277-4657
the next week, he confirmed the plan for the discriminatory mailing while also
acknowledging that the State is encouraging all voters to request absentee ballots
36.41. Plaintiffs, Aleija Stover and Camille Rose Nelson are under age 65,
and have not received absentee ballot applications. Therefore, Plaintiffs, like all
18 https://www.ktuu.com/content/news/Absentee-ballot-applications-to-be-sent-
to-all-registered-Alaskan-voters-65-and-older--571204481.html.
19 https://www.alaskapublic.org/2020/06/21/state-will-mail-absentee-ballot-
applications-to-seniors-critics-say-that-suppresses-young-minority-votes/.
Alaska voters younger than 65, must proactively begin the process of obtaining a
ballot. Additional options all involve multiple additional steps, barriers, and
requirements.
37.42. For instance, younger voters may use Alaska’s Online Absentee
Ballot Application, but that system requires both reliable Internet access and
certain forms of ID that not all eligible voters have. Or they may use the state’s
online portal to generate and print a paper application, but that requires not only
Internet access but also access to a printer and mailing materials, including a
vote on account of age, because it makes it more difficult for those under 65 to
701 WEST EIGHTH AVENUE, SUITE 700
ANCHORAGE, AK 99501-3408
vote absentee than for those 65 and older. This follows logically: Voters 65 and
TELEPHONE (907) 274-0666
FACSIMILE (907) 277-4657
older do not have to take any affirmative step to begin the process of applying for
an absentee ballot, because the State has chosen to take that first step for them—
and only for them—by mailing the applications proactively. As a result, voters
65 and older (because it is now harder for the younger group of voters to obtain
absentee ballots), purely because of their age. That is the very definition of a law
or policy that abridges the right to vote on account of age—a textbook violation of
39.44. Data also shows that the discriminatory mailing will have a
disparate racial impact on voters of color and Alaska Native voters. As of July
2018, 77% of the 87,304 Alaskans 65 or over was white, but only 67% of the
younger cohort of 461,835 voters was white. Thus, only 19,930 people of color (or
11.7% of the total population of people of color) will get the absentee ballot
application in the discriminatory mailing. But 67,374 white people (or 17.8% of
worse due to guidance from the CDC published on July 10, 2020 indicating that
29.5% of nonwhite fatalities were younger than 65 years of age, as opposed to only
701 WEST EIGHTH AVENUE, SUITE 700
ANCHORAGE, AK 99501-3408
The opposite is true: based on data from the 2018 election, nationally, 22.5% of
voters 18 to 24 and 20.7% of those aged 25 to 34 used at-home ballots in the 2018
election. At the same time, 30% of voters over 65 voted at home nationally in
2018. Thus, all age cohorts used absentee balloting a substantial rate in 2018.21
20 https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6928e1.htm.
21 All source data can be found at http://voteathome26.us.
42.47. Those numbers are expected to surge in elections in 2020 due to the
coronavirus pandemic. In the June 23, 2020 primary in Kentucky, 85% of voters
voted by absentee ballot—up an astonishing 42.5 times (or 4,250%) from just 2%
use of absentee ballots in the 2018 general election in that state.22 Similarly
massive jumps have been seen across the Nation: Maryland went from 4%
absentee in 2016 to 97% in 2020; Iowa from 19% to 80%; New Mexico from 7% to
64%; and so on.23 There is every reason to believe that Alaska will see a similar
desire of voters of all ages, races, and backgrounds to vote by mail. Absentee
voting through the mail might become the default method of voting in 2020,
irrational in light of the nature of the pandemic and the broad use of vote by mail
TELEPHONE (907) 274-0666
FACSIMILE (907) 277-4657
across all age groups that we’ve seen since the pandemic hit. Lieutenant Governor
Meyer explained that older Alaskans “are a very vulnerable group” and that
many “are worried about the virus.” He noted that in particular older poll workers
might not show up, and recognized that “if they’re not comfortable, we don’t want
22 https://www.whas11.com/article/news/local/kentucky-election-absentee-vote-
turnout/417-23f2bb1e-ea9a-4c7e-8202-c33f54063ab6,
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/preparing-your-state-
election-under-pandemic-conditions.
23 https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-june-2-primaries-can-tell-us-
about-november/.
44.49. But the State’s mailing to all Alaskans over 65 makes no sense of
this stated rationale. It is uncontested that there are many other vulnerable
individuals with disabilities—who are not receiving the mailing. And both federal
and state guidance recommends that all Americans engage in social distancing
precisely so that the virus does not circulate widely. For this reason, many
Alaskans under 65 are “not comfortable” with in-person voting. These are people
the State admits it does not want to “come out” to vote. Yet the State is also
forcing them to take steps that older voters need not take to obtain absentee
ballots.
HOLMES WEDDLE & BARCOTT, PC
Alaska.
COUNT I
47.52. The discriminatory mailing has caused and will cause Alaska voters
age, while voters younger than 65 must take additional steps in order to vote by
absentee ballot. Therefore, the mailing discriminates on its face on the basis of
age, abridges the voting rights of Alaskans younger than 65 on account of their
48.53. The state’s actions in excluding every voter under the age of 65 are
arbitrary and capricious. The state does not have a compelling interest sufficient
to justify this discrimination and, even if it did, its actions in sending absentee
ballot applications to all voters 65 and older are not narrowly tailored to serve
HOLMES WEDDLE & BARCOTT, PC
50.55. Absent relief from this Court, Plaintiffs, and all Alaska voters under
COUNT II
“must be strictly scrutinized and can only survive scrutiny if the State establishes
a compelling state interest and that its action is closely tailored to effectuate that
interest and is the least onerous path that can be taken to achieve the State’s
objective.” Montana Envtl. Info Ctr. V. Dept of Envtl. Quality, 998 P.2d 1236
(Mont. 1999).
must carefully balance the character and magnitude of injury to the First and
HOLMES WEDDLE & BARCOTT, PC
Fourteenth Amendment rights that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate against “‘the
701 WEST EIGHTH AVENUE, SUITE 700
ANCHORAGE, AK 99501-3408
precise interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed
TELEPHONE (907) 274-0666
FACSIMILE (907) 277-4657
by its rule,’ taking into consideration ‘the extent to which those interests make it
necessary to burden the plaintiff’s rights.’” See Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428,
434 (1992) (quoting Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 789 (1983)).
65 and older fails both tests. At the same time that it is making the right to vote
easier to assert for voters 65 and older, the State is also encouraging all voters to
additional administrative work and cost associated with expanding the mailing
to all voters is easily outweighed by the comparative burden that younger voters
face by requiring them to obtain absentee ballot applications on their own or vote
55.60. Absent relief from this Court, Plaintiffs and many other Alaska
COUNT III
57.62. The Alaska Constitution provides that “[e]very citizen of the United
States who is at least eighteen years of age, who meets registration residency
HOLMES WEDDLE & BARCOTT, PC
requirements which may be prescribed by law, and who is qualified to vote under
701 WEST EIGHTH AVENUE, SUITE 700
ANCHORAGE, AK 99501-3408
TELEPHONE (907) 274-0666
FACSIMILE (907) 277-4657
this article, may vote in any state or local election.” Alaska Const. Art. V, Sec. 1.
dedicated to the principle[] that all persons . . . are equal and entitled to equal
59.64. The Alaska Supreme Court has recognized the rights provided
under the United States Constitution and has not hesitated to enhance those
because it makes voting easier and more accessible for one group of Alaskans,
and consequently more difficult in a relative sense for all others, based solely on
their age.
HOLMES WEDDLE & BARCOTT, PC
COUNT IV
701 WEST EIGHTH AVENUE, SUITE 700
ANCHORAGE, AK 99501-3408
24Myers v. Alaska Psychiatric Inst., 138 P.3d 238, 245 (Alaska 2006) (citing Valley
Hosp. Ass’n v. Mat-Su Coal., 948 P.2d 963, 966-67 (Alaska 1997)).
25 Roberts v. State, 458 P.2d 340, 342-43 (Alaska 1969) (citing U.S. Const.
amend. IX). See also Baker v. City of Fairbanks, 471 P.2d 386, 401-02 (Alaska
1970) (footnote and citations omitted). “While we must enforce the minimum
constitutional standards imposed upon us by the United States Supreme Court’s
interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, we are free, and we are under a
duty, to develop additional constitutional rights and privileges under our Alaska
Constitution if we find such fundamental rights and privileges to be within the
intention and spirit of our local constitutional language and to be necessary for
the kind of civilized life and ordered liberty which is at the core of our
constitutional heritage. We need not stand by idly and passively, waiting for
constitutional direction form the highest court of the land. Instead, we should be
moving concurrently to develop and expound the principles embedded in our
constitutional law.”
62.67. The Alaska Constitution provides that “No person is to be denied the
enjoyment of any civil or political right because of race, color, creed, sex, or
63.68. The discriminatory mailing makes it easier for Alaskans who are 65
and older to exercise their right to vote than for Alaskans younger than 65. People
COUNT V
701 WEST EIGHTH AVENUE, SUITE 700
ANCHORAGE, AK 99501-3408
TELEPHONE (907) 274-0666
FACSIMILE (907) 277-4657
Kenai Peninsula Borough v. State, 743 P.2d 1352 (Alaska 1987) (interpreting
described above, people of color make up a significantly lower portion of the voters
COUNT VI
critical areas as… voting”27 and authorized the ADA to “to provide a clear and
TELEPHONE (907) 274-0666
FACSIMILE (907) 277-4657
26 Alaska Population Overview, Table 2.10, 2.11 (showing population data by age
and ethnicity for each region, borough, and census area),
https://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/pop/estimates/pub/13popover.pdf.
27 42 U.S.C. § 12101(3).
28 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1).
69.74. Title II of the ADA prohibits the State from excluding or denying a
qualified individual with a disability from the benefits of the services, programs,
includes many Alaskan voters who have a disability within the meaning of the
ADA who may face a significant risk of severe illness or death should they
contract COVID-19.
HOLMES WEDDLE & BARCOTT, PC
72.77. This class of Alaskan voters with disabilities who are under 65 years
701 WEST EIGHTH AVENUE, SUITE 700
ANCHORAGE, AK 99501-3408
of age will not receive the benefit of the State’s discriminatory mailer. To the
TELEPHONE (907) 274-0666
FACSIMILE (907) 277-4657
extent that the State recognizes that voters over 65 are “a very vulnerable group”
and “if they are not comfortable, we don’t want them to come out,” the state has
failed to recognize that the same concern exists for Alaskans with disabilities
under 65.
group homes or institutions may face the same complications to apply for mail in
voting as rural voters, as residential or institutional care may not have accessible
internet, and many of these residents may not have state identification.
that some voters with disabilities may face, many voters experiencing
provided to older voters and creates an unnecessary additional step to apply for
701 WEST EIGHTH AVENUE, SUITE 700
ANCHORAGE, AK 99501-3408
mail in voting.
TELEPHONE (907) 274-0666
FACSIMILE (907) 277-4657
77.82. The requested relief, while covering more than just the class of
individuals protected by the ADA, will ensure that every Alaskan with a
disability will have the opportunity to apply to vote by mail should they choose to
COUNT VII
31 42 U.S.C. §§ 12188(a)(1)-(2).
whether received from the State or not, violates the Voting Rights Act with
absentee ballot requests be received ten days before a presidential election when
federal law states that all requests made up to seven days before the election are
85. Absent relief from this Court, Plaintiffs and many other Alaskan
HOLMES WEDDLE & BARCOTT, PC
successors, and all persons acting in concert with them, or any other official to
successors, all persons acting in concert with them, or any other official from
timely processed;
HOLMES WEDDLE & BARCOTT, PC
d.e. Find that Plaintiffs are public interest litigants seeking the
701 WEST EIGHTH AVENUE, SUITE 700
ANCHORAGE, AK 99501-3408
f.g. Grant any and all additional relief to which Plaintiffs are entitled.
By:
By:
701 WEST EIGHTH AVENUE, SUITE 700
ANCHORAGE, AK 99501-3408
Michael Donofrio*
TELEPHONE (907) 274-0666
FACSIMILE (907) 277-4657
EQUAL CITIZENS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, on the __ day of July 2020, I electronically filed the
foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send
notification of such filing to the following:
Margaret Paton-Walsh
Attorney General’s Office
1031 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, AK 99501
margaret.paton-walsh@alaska.govCo-Counsel
for Plaintiffs
By:
HOLMES WEDDLE & BARCOTT, PC
701 WEST EIGHTH AVENUE, SUITE 700
Scott M. Kendall
Jason Harrow*
Equal Citizens
3243 S. La Cienega Blvd.
Suite B
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (610) 357-9614
Scott M. Kendall
Alaska Bar No. 0405019
Samuel G. Gottstein
Alaska Bar No. 1511099
Holmes Weddle & Barcott, P.C.
701 West 8th Avenue, Ste. 700
Anchorage, AK 99501
Phone: 907.274.0666
Fax: 907.277.4657
smkendall@hwb-law.com
sgottstein@hwb-law.com
Jason Harrow
Equal Citizens
3243B S. La Cienega Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90016
jason@equalcitizens.us
Michael Donofrio
Stris & Maher LLP
28 Elm St., 2d Fl.
Montpelier, VT 05602
michael.donofrio@strismaher.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
HOLMES WEDDLE & BARCOTT, PC
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Notice of Appeal
Disability Law Center of Alaska v. Meyer Page 1
Case No. 3:20-cv-173-JMK
Case 3:20-cv-00173-JMK Document 37 Filed 09/04/20 Page 1 of 3 ER-129
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 130 of 139
Group, Aleija Stover, and Camille Rose Nelson, hereby appeal to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the Court’s order, dated September 3,
2020 and entered on the docket on that same day at ECF Docket Entry Number
36. Plaintiffs appeal any and all aspects of the order denying Plaintiffs’ Motion
Samuel G. Gottstein
Alaska Bar No. 1511099
701 WEST EIGHTH AVENUE, SUITE 700
ANCHORAGE, AK 99501-3408
Notice of Appeal
Disability Law Center of Alaska v. Meyer Page 2
Case No. 3:20-cv-173-JMK
Case 3:20-cv-00173-JMK Document 37 Filed 09/04/20 Page 2 of 3 ER-130
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 131 of 139
CM/ECF District of Alaska Version 6.1 LIVE DB 11/27/20, 10:48 AM
APPEAL,JMKLC1
Keri-Ann Baker
Reeves Amodio LLC.
500 L Street, Suite 300
Anchorage, AK 99501
907-222-7100
Fax: 907-222-7199
Email: kbaker@reevesamodio.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ER-131
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 132 of 139
CM/ECF District of Alaska Version 6.1 LIVE DB 11/27/20, 10:48 AM
802-858-4465
Email: Michael.donofrio@strismaher.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
Native Peoples Action Community Fund represented by Scott M. Kendall
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Plaintiff
Alaska Public Interest Research Group represented by Scott M. Kendall
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
https://ecf.akd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?854383018321356-L_1_0-1 Page 2 of 9
ER-132
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 133 of 139
CM/ECF District of Alaska Version 6.1 LIVE DB 11/27/20, 10:48 AM
V.
Defendant
Kevin Meyer represented by Margaret A. Paton-Walsh
Lieutenant Governor of Alaska State of Alaska, Department of Law (Anch
- suite 200)
Office of the Attorney General, Civil
Division
1031 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, AK 99501
907-269-6612
Fax: 907-258-4978
Email: margaret.paton-walsh@alaska.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
State of Alaska, Division of Elections represented by Margaret A. Paton-Walsh
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
Alaska Community Action On Toxics represented by Keri-Ann Baker
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas P. Amodio
Reeves Amodio LLC.
500 L Street, Suite 300
Anchorage, AK 99501
907-222-7100
Fax: 907-222-7199
https://ecf.akd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?854383018321356-L_1_0-1 Page 3 of 9
ER-133
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 134 of 139
CM/ECF District of Alaska Version 6.1 LIVE DB 11/27/20, 10:48 AM
Email: tom@reevesamodio.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest represented by Keri-Ann Baker
and Hawaii (See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas P. Amodio
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
Alaska Center Education Fund represented by Keri-Ann Baker
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas P. Amodio
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amicus
Honest Elections Project represented by Craig W. Richards
Law Office of Craig Richards
810 N Street Ste. 100
Anchorage, AK 99501
907-306-9878
Email:
crichards@alaskaprofessionalservices.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Any party needing a copy of the transcript to review for redaction purposes may
https://ecf.akd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?854383018321356-L_1_0-1 Page 4 of 9
ER-134
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 135 of 139
CM/ECF District of Alaska Version 6.1 LIVE DB 11/27/20, 10:48 AM
purchase a copy by calling Realtime Court Reporter, Sonja L. Reeves, RMR-CRR (907)
677-6136. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through
the Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date
it may be obtained through PACER.
The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to
Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be
made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after Release of
Transcript Restriction deadline of 12/21/2020. Ordered by: Scott Kendall (SLR)
(Entered: 09/22/2020)
09/18/2020 41 ORDER denying 38 Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal. Signed by Judge Joshua M.
Kindred on 9/18/2020. (LLR, CHAMBERS STAFF) (Entered: 09/18/2020)
09/09/2020 39 RESPONSE in Opposition re 38 MOTION re 37 Notice of Appeal, Motion for
Injunction Pending Appeal Opposition to Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal filed
by State of Alaska, Division of Elections. (Paton-Walsh, Margaret) (Entered:
09/09/2020)
09/04/2020 40 USCA Case Number 20-35778 for 37 Notice of Appeal, filed by Aleija Stover,
Disability Law Center of Alaska, Alaska Public Interest Research Group, Native
Peoples Action Community Fund, Camille Rose Nelson. (BJK, COURT STAFF)
(Entered: 09/14/2020)
09/04/2020 38 MOTION re 37 Notice of Appeal, Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal by Alaska
Public Interest Research Group, Disability Law Center of Alaska, Native Peoples
Action Community Fund, Camille Rose Nelson, Aleija Stover. (Attachments: # 1
Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Kendall, Scott) (Entered: 09/04/2020)
09/04/2020 37 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 36 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Alaska
Public Interest Research Group, Disability Law Center of Alaska, Native Peoples
Action Community Fund, Camille Rose Nelson, Aleija Stover. Filing fee $ 505, receipt
number 097--2934382. (Kendall, Scott) (Entered: 09/04/2020)
09/03/2020 36 ORDER denying 12 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Joshua M.
Kindred on 9/3/2020. (LLR, CHAMBERS STAFF) (Entered: 09/03/2020)
09/01/2020 35 ANSWER to Complaint Answer by All Defendants.(Paton-Walsh, Margaret) (Entered:
09/01/2020)
08/25/2020 34 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Joshua M. Kindred: Oral Argument on
Motion for Preliminary Injunction 12 held 9:04 a.m. to 10:07 a.m. on 8/25/2020. Court
and counsel heard re 12 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Oral arguments heard.
Matter TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. Written ruling to issue. VIRTUAL
APPEARANCES: Scott M. Kendall telephonic for Plaintiff; Jason Seth Harrow and
Michael Nicholas Donofrio via Video for Plaintiff; Margaret A. Paton-Walsh via Video
for Defendant; Kerry Ann Baker telephonic for Intervenor Plaintiff; Sonja L. Reeves,
Official Court Reporter. (RMC, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/25/2020)
08/20/2020 33 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Keri-Ann Baker on behalf of Alaska Center
Education Fund, Alaska Community Action On Toxics, Planned Parenthood Votes
https://ecf.akd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?854383018321356-L_1_0-1 Page 5 of 9
ER-135
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 136 of 139
CM/ECF District of Alaska Version 6.1 LIVE DB 11/27/20, 10:48 AM
https://ecf.akd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?854383018321356-L_1_0-1 Page 6 of 9
ER-136
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 137 of 139
CM/ECF District of Alaska Version 6.1 LIVE DB 11/27/20, 10:48 AM
https://ecf.akd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?854383018321356-L_1_0-1 Page 7 of 9
ER-137
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 138 of 139
CM/ECF District of Alaska Version 6.1 LIVE DB 11/27/20, 10:48 AM
07/22/2020 9 NOTICE Proposed Order Granting Motion to Amend Complaint by Alaska Public
Interest Research Group, Disability Law Center of Alaska, Native Peoples Action
Community Fund, Camille Rose Nelson, Aleija Stover re 8 MOTION to
Amend/Correct 1 Notice of Removal, (Kendall, Scott) (Entered: 07/22/2020)
07/22/2020 8 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Notice of Removal, by Alaska Public Interest Research
Group, Disability Law Center of Alaska, Native Peoples Action Community Fund,
Camille Rose Nelson, Aleija Stover. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1)(Kendall,
Scott) (Entered: 07/22/2020)
07/21/2020 7 MOTION for Leave to Appear as Pro Hac Vice (Non-Resident ) Attorney Michael
Donofrio. ( Pro Hac Vice Admission fee $150.00 paid. Receipt number 097--2909962.)
by Alaska Public Interest Research Group, Disability Law Center of Alaska, Native
Peoples Action Community Fund, Camille Rose Nelson, Aleija Stover. (Attachments: #
1 Certificate of Good Standing)(Donofrio, Michael) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
07/21/2020 6 NOTICE Notice of Completed Filing by State of Alaska, Division of Elections (Paton-
Walsh, Margaret) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
07/21/2020 5 NOTICE OF FILING STATE COURT SERVICE LIST by All Defendants (Paton-
Walsh, Margaret) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
07/21/2020 4 MOTION for Leave to Appear as Pro Hac Vice (Non-Resident ) Attorney Jason
Harrow. ( Pro Hac Vice Admission fee $150.00 paid. Receipt number 097--2909546.)
by Alaska Public Interest Research Group, Disability Law Center of Alaska, Native
Peoples Action Community Fund, Camille Rose Nelson, Aleija Stover.(Harrow, Jason)
(Entered: 07/21/2020)
07/21/2020 3 ORDER to Petitioner Subsequent to Removal: Service list due within 10 days. State
Court documents due within 20 days. (LMH, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
07/20/2020 2 Civil Cover Sheet. (Paton-Walsh, Margaret) (Entered: 07/20/2020)
07/20/2020 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by All Defendants Defendant's Notice of Removal from
Superior Court for the State of Alaska Third Judicial District at Anchorage, case
number 3AN-20-07060CI. ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 097--2908757), filed by
All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Complaint)(Paton-Walsh, Margaret)
(Entered: 07/20/2020)
https://ecf.akd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?854383018321356-L_1_0-1 Page 8 of 9
ER-138
Case: 20-35778, 12/01/2020, ID: 11911411, DktEntry: 27, Page 139 of 139
CM/ECF District of Alaska Version 6.1 LIVE DB 11/27/20, 10:48 AM
Criteria: JMK
Billable
7 Cost: 0.70
Pages:
https://ecf.akd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?854383018321356-L_1_0-1 Page 9 of 9
ER-139