Alaska election officials are clarifying the candidate certification process after Lieutenant Governor Nancy Dahlstrom reversed her decision not to certify two candidates for the November ballot.
What happened?
Dahlstrom initially accepted a recommendation from the Alaska Public Offices Commission, or APOC, not to certify former Attorney General Treg Taylor and Jose Tagle because of concerns over their financial disclosure filings.
APOC oversees campaign finance and financial disclosure rules. The commission recommended the candidates not be certified for the ballot because of questions about their disclosures.
But after Dahlstrom accepted that recommendation, the Alaska Department of Law conducted a limited review of financial disclosure filings from other candidates.
The review found potential discrepancies in 91 of roughly 130 filings. Officials stressed those were potential discrepancies — not findings that candidates had violated the law.
“There’s no implication of wrongdoing by any of these candidates,” Rachel Witty, director of civil litigation for the Department of Law, said.
Witty said the review was not a full investigation. Candidates were not contacted to explain potential discrepancies, and the department did not make legal findings.
Dahlstrom said the findings raised questions about whether the standards used in Taylor and Tagle’s cases were being applied consistently across all candidates.
“When the consequence involves removing a candidate from the ballot, I believe the process must be one that can be applied consistently and defended,” Dahlstrom said.
Dahlstrom then reversed her decision and certified Taylor and Tagle for the November ballot.
What does this mean for the ballot?
Governor Mike Dunleavy said the ballot is now set.
“The slate is set. The names on the ballots, those that are going to be running for election, that have gotten through the primaries, etc., that slate is now solidified,” Dunleavy said.
The Department of Law said its review was conducted quickly because officials were working against the deadline to finalize the ballot.
Steve Cox, general counsel for the Department of Law, said the findings changed the state’s assessment of the situation.
“If you’ve got numerous filings, over half the filings that present potentially comparable questions, yet only three had been subjected to this unprecedented process and potential forfeiture, there was a serious risk that a court could later say that the process was flawed,” Cox said.
APOC can still investigate potential financial disclosure violations through its normal enforcement process. That process is separate from the candidate certification decision.
But state officials say the general election ballot is now finalized. Any future changes would require a court order.