Alaska Division Of Elections v Daniel J. Sullivan At Supreme Court

AK Div of Elections v. Daniel J. Sullivan live at www.ktoo.org/gavel

Depending on whether I'm looking at the clock on my laptop, phone, or watch, it is now 10:07, 10:15, or 10:10 and I have the screen up but nothing has happened yet.  Oh, yes - now it says delayed start.  

[Screenshot from KTOO Gavel Alaska]  

 

Not sure what that means.  I was told the courtroom wouldn't be open today and I assumed it meant everyone was zooming in.  That was the case of the Superior Court hearing Thursday - none of the participants were there live, including the judge, but the courtroom was open and there were about a dozen people in the gallery.  

10:22 - Delay notice gone, Gavel banging.

Oh dear.  My notes are pretty sketchy.  I'm not sure I should leave them up.  The video is supposed to be up for anyone to listen to.  Let me try to get the gist up and then I'll decide whether my notes should go up as well.  

Basically, Chris Murray, attorney for the Division of Elections, began arguing that Sullivan is on the ballot to confuse the voters and so should be removed, and the justices are asking where it says that's a reason for taking him off the ballot.  

Aren't the voters smart enough?

Murray is standing hard that Sullivan was on the ballot only to confuse the voters and the Court keeps questioning him about that.  

[Left to right starting with top row:

Susan M. Carney, Chief Justice, Justice Jennifer Henderson;  Second row: Justice Jude Pate, Justice Aimee A. Oravec;  Attorney for Div of Elections: Chris Murray;

Third row:  Attorney for Daniel J. Sullivan] [Screenshot from KTOO Gavel Alaska]

[It was impossible for me to read their names correctly from the screen.  They were just too small, though clearer than the screenshot above.]

The justices seemed to come down pretty hard on that point.  

They also  questioned Jeffrey Robinson closely when it was his turn.  

My sense is that the decision to bump Daniel J. Sullivan from the ballot will not prevail.  That leaves questions about how his name will appear and how much the court will direct how his name will appear or whether they will leave it up to the Division of Elections.  

Some of the questions about the name:

1. Will it be Dan Sullivan, Daniel J. Sullivan?  Dan J. Sullivan?  His attorney seemed to want it to be as close to Sen. Sullivan's name as possible, while still be distinguishable.  
2. Will he be designated as a Republican?  It seems that he did officially change his party to Republican and so the Division would have to use that, but I'm not certain.
3. Will the Supreme Court tell the Division how to write his name and party, or leave that up to the discretion of the Division of Elections?  This wasn't clear.  Both attorneys said they trusted the Division to be professional.  Justice Matthews of the Superior Court instructed them.  I'm not sure that the Supreme Court will do the same.  Though there is very little time between now and when they start printing ballots tomorrow.  If the Division butchers his name and party designation, there will be no time to appeal.  

They promised to get the order out very quickly, but the opinion explaining their decision would come later.  

The recording of the session is up on KTOO Gavel Alaska and I've embedded it below so you can check my understanding of what's left with what they said.  I'll try to do the same.  

You should be able to click on the play button and listen yourself and I'll not post my sketchy notes of they arguments.

Chief Justice Carney at the end:  An extraordinary schedule.  We greatly appreciate your depth of arguments.  We will do our best to get at least an order out, will take longer to get opinion out.  Apologize for my computer,  Recessed.  

11:20 am