Alaska Democratic Party files another legal challenge to disqualify House candidate

The Alaska Democratic Party filed a petition on Wednesday asking a state Superior Court judge to compel the Alaska Division of Elections to disqualify a candidate for the Alaska State House from the November ballot. 

That’s after Republican Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom reversed an Aug. 31 decision not to certify two Republican candidates for the midterm election. She reinstated Jose Tagle, a candidate for House District 22, on Sep. 4, along with former attorney general, Treg Taylor, who is running for governor.

The petition only challenges Tagle’s reinstatement on the ballot, not Taylor’s.

The Alaska Public Offices Commission had officially recommended the division not certify the two candidates after finding that they failed to complete campaign finance disclosure reports within the 30 day period as required by state elections law. 

Dahlstrom had initially followed that recommendation and declined to certify Tagle and Taylor. But she reversed that decision on Sep. 4, and later cited an unusual review by the Alaska Department of Law that found gaps in 91 other candidates’ financial disclosure reports.

“I will not withhold certification from two candidates on recommendations that, in light of this additional information, I cannot apply with confidence across the field of candidates,” Dahlstrom said in a statement announcing her decision. “Certification decisions have to rest on a process that can be defended as to every candidate.”

Officials with the Alaska Democratic Party said in a statement announcing the new legal challenge that she “capitulated after apparently receiving outside pressure.” The statement did not include evidence of outside pressure.

“Dahlstrom’s about-face reflects a broader concern about an election system that has repeatedly required voters, advocacy organizations, and political parties to seek judicial intervention just to get clear answers,” the group wrote. “Alaskans should not have to rely on administrative complaints and litigation to simply understand which rules apply and whether the state intends to stick by its own decisions.” 

Dahlstrom’s office and the Alaska Department of Law did not respond to a list of questions Thursday, including the reason for her decision to reinstate Tagle, whether potential litigation risk was a factor, and if there is a legal basis for reversing her initial decision and rejecting APOC’s recommendation to decline Tagle’s certifcation. 

The new legal challenge stems from a lawsuit filed by the Alaska Democratic Party in June, which argues Tagle was ineligible to run in the primary election after he filed a completely blank financial disclosure report with his application to run for the seat. 

Alaska Democrats sue elections officials after they approved candidate who didn’t disclose finances

In that case, attorneys on behalf of the Division of Elections argued that APOC is the regulatory agency that oversees candidates’ financial disclosures and has authority over candidates’ eligibility and compliance with state disclosure laws —  not the division.  

The judge ruled in favor of the division on Aug. 16, saying APOC has the authority to investigate candidates’ financial reports, while the division and the Lt. Governor’s office has the legal duty to administer elections, including enforcing deadlines for financial disclosures.

The court acknowledged that if the APOC fails to investigate, a candidate cannot advance on the ballot or be elected to office. “The law is clear that a candidate who fails to substantially comply with AS 39.50 within the time limits of AS 39.50.060(b) forfeits nomination and election,” Superior Court Judge Josie Garton wrote. 

In the Alaska Democratic Party’s legal filing on Tuesday, the party argues that is the precise situation of Tagle, given APOC’s official recommendation to the division not to certify him.

“There is no legal basis for the division to reinstate Tagle as a candidate now that APOC has concluded he failed to comply with AS 39.50,” they wrote. “If the statute is to have any effect at all, this court must apply it as written and direct the division to remove Tagle from the general election ballot.”

They argue “at the very least” if Tagle wins the general election the court should prohibit Dahlstrom from allowing Tagle to take office. 

Officials with the Alaska Democratic Party called for consistency from the division in enforcing campaign finance disclosure laws. 

“You cannot tell a court one thing, tell candidates another, and then expect voters to trust whatever answer comes next,” said Jenny Marie Stryker, executive director of the Alaska Democratic Party in a statement Wednesday. 

“This inconsistency is embarrassing and a poor example of public service,” she continued. “Whoever comes into office next will have a lot of work to do, because this DOE seems determined to leave a disastrous mess for others to clean up.”

Tagle did not respond to a text message requesting comment sent to a number listed for him on the division’s website on Wednesday. The voicemail box was full and not accepting new messages.

Following the ruling, on Aug. 16, Tagle updated his financial disclosure report with APOC to include his income and business interests. 

When asked why the Alaska Democratic Party did not also file a legal challenge to the division reinstating gubernatorial candidate Treg Taylor, whose case is similar, a spokesperson said it was because the lawsuit against Tagle’s candidacy was already in play.

“It’s because our previous challenge was only in regard to Tagle. So we’re just finishing what we started,” said Jalen Lee by email on Thursday.

APOC investigated and issued an official recommendation on Aug. 27 that Lt. Gov Dahlstrom and the division not certify Taylor’s nomination for governor after he failed to comply with candidate financial disclosure requirements within the state deadline.

Taylor had failed to disclose the names of his renters at several properties in Anchorage, including a rental and extended stay apartment complex, Inlet View Tower. Taylor applied for a waiver, but was denied. 

Taylor disclosed the first name and last initial of renters in July, but has not updated the report with information as requested by APOC.