Daniel J. Appeal Of Division Of Elections Decision Plays Out In Nearly Empty Court Room

 At 9:45am there were just a few people waiting outside courtroom 401a in Anchorage.  In the end, there were about 11 people there in the gallery.  There was a woman who I'm guessing was working the computer connections.  

 

Darden

No one with a speaking part, including the Judge, was in the courtroom.  The only person who had any role at all in this appeal that I could tell, was Dustin Darden.  He's a candidate in the US Senate race.  Dustin had submitted a brief, which the judge accepted as an Amicus Brief, in which he basically says that if Daniel J. can be bumped off the ballot, then what's to stop them from bumping off a candidate like himself.  

Judge Matthews was on a large screen in front of the courtroom with a background that similar, but not the same as the actual courtroom.  We never saw the attorneys on the big screen, though at the table for the parties -there was a small screen which had the view of the attorneys.  

The judge said he had the briefs from Darden and from the Alaska Republican Party and that they wouldn't speak at the hearing, but he'd consider them as amicus briefs. 

First Jeffrey Robinson representing Daniel J. spoke.  There really wasn't anything I noticed as new (not in the brief originally submitted) though he said he had added some things after reading the State's brief.  They all agreed, in the interest of speed, that if that became important later, they could take it up.  

Again, the basic argument was that there were only three criteria the state could use to exclude someone from the ballot - the ones in the Constitution  - at least 30 years old, at least nine years as a US citizen, and an inhabitant of the state when elected.  His client met all three criteria.  

He dismissed the State's claim that the administrative regs which called for not allowing names on the ballot that would mislead the public had to be removed.  It was the job of the Division of Elections to figure out how to write the names in a way that would distinguish them for the public, and the job of the campaign of Sen. Sullivan to alert the voters so they would know which one to vote for.  

He did mention a candidate in Louisiana who'd changed his name to None of the Above, but was not allowed on the ballot.

Chris Murray, represented the State Division of Elections.  He basically made the argument that the administrative code requires that the Division NOT put someone on the ballot that would mislead and confuse the public.  

The judge promised to have a decision by 4:30pm tomorrow (Friday) and if there is an appeal to the Supreme Court, there would be time.  

I would note that it seems I'd have been better off staying at home and connecting via Zoom.  The main benefit of going to the court house was that it was a nice day for a bike ride.

Some other takes:

 Liz Ruskin, Alaska Public Media

Mark Sabbatini, Juneau Independent

Thomas Lamb: Analyzing Politics That Control Our Lives  I don't know who Lamb is, other than he lives in Palmer, Alaska.  He goes through the Division of Elections arguments point by point and concludes: 

"Christopher O. Murray and Michael Francisco filed their brief on June 24, 2026. It is sophisticated, well-researched, and constitutionally wrong. Here is why, argument by argument"