The Alaska Democratic Party is asking a court to reverse the Dunleavy administration’s decision allowing a Republican legislative candidate to remain on the ballot, despite his initial refusal to declare his financial interests.
The court challenge could have far-reaching implications for Alaska’s financial disclosure laws, which are designed to avoid public officials acting or appearing to act to benefit their private interests while in office.
The litigation could also impact the governor’s race, in which one of four candidates — Republican former Attorney General Treg Taylor — was allowed to remain on the ballot, even after months of refusing to disclose the names of his rent-paying tenants as required by law.
The Alaska Public Offices Commission found late last month that both Taylor and the legislative candidate, Anchorage’s Jose Tagle, should not appear on the ballot because they failed to comply with financial disclosure laws.
Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom, a Republican who oversees Alaska’s elections, initially heeded the commission’s recommendation and removed both Tagle and Taylor from the November ballot. But four days later, she reinstated them, citing a preliminary Department of Law review that found that dozens of other candidates may have errors on their financial disclosure forms.
[Alaska Department of Law finds possible errors in 91 candidates’ financial disclosure forms]
Dahlstrom said the decision had no bearing on the commission’s findings that Tagle and Taylor were out of compliance with the state’s disclosure laws. But she said that since other candidates may also be out of compliance, she could not remove the two from the ballot.
Jenny Marie Stryker, executive director of the Alaska Democratic Party, said in a statement Wednesday that Dahlstrom’s decision was part of a pattern of mishandled election decisions this year.
“You cannot tell a court one thing, tell candidates another, and then expect voters to trust whatever answer comes next. This inconsistency is embarrassing and a poor example of public service,” Stryker said.
The Alaska Democratic Party had filed its original challenge in July seeking to disqualify Tagle — who is running against Democratic incumbent Rep. Ted Eischeid in an East Anchorage district — after Tagle filed a blank financial disclosure form that listed no income or interests, despite evidence that he had both.
Tagle eventually filed an amended form on Aug. 8, more than a month after the commission’s 30-day grace period had concluded, disclosing some income and business interests. On Aug. 16, two days before primary voting ended, Tagle filed another amendment disclosing additional rental income, business interests and debts.
Anchorage Superior Court Judge Josie Garton sided with the state, writing last month that it was the responsibility of the Alaska Public Offices Commission — not the lieutenant governor or her staff — to determine whether candidates’ financial disclosures are accurate.
Two weeks after Garton’s initial ruling, the Public Offices Commission recommended against certifying Tagle’s candidacy.
In a Tuesday filing, the Alaska Democratic Party asked the court to enforce its own decision, given the commission’s August finding that Tagle has not complied with the disclosure law.
“We’re going back now, in our ongoing live case, to say to the judge, ‘we did what you asked, and APOC did what you asked, but now the Division of Elections isn’t doing what they should,’ ” said Eric Croft, chair of the Alaska Democratic Party.
The party is asking the court to either stop elections officials from including Tagle on the November ballot, or — if the ballots have already been printed — stop Tagle from holding office in the event that he defeats his Democratic opponent.
Eischeid, the Democratic incumbent, is already the heavy front-runner, having beaten Tagle in the primary by nearly 30 percentage points.
But the court case could have implications beyond Tagle on the extent to which Alaska’s financial disclosure laws can be enforced, including in the case of Taylor, who is seeking the governor’s office even after failing to comply with orders from the Public Offices Commission.
“It might have an effect on the Taylor action, that is, if we still have a Department of Law that’s interested in the law, they might say, ‘we should do the same thing here, too,’ ” said Croft, a former lawmaker and attorney.
Croft indicated the Alaska Democratic Party is not considering similar litigation against Taylor, but a separate lawsuit could be filed against Taylor on similar grounds.
“We were just going to finish the thing that’s in front of us,” said Croft. “The Democratic Party is in the business of helping candidates win elections, not litigation. I’m already spending a little more on litigation than I’d like.”
Taylor, who owns real estate investments worth millions of dollars, has said he does not want to disclose the names of his tenants for fear of harassment, and has also claimed that Alaska law is not clear in its requirement that tenant names be listed, though he has not sought any formal clarification on the statutes from the courts.
The Public Offices Commission has maintained that Taylor should be required to list his tenants, just as dozens of other candidates and elected officials do every year. When invited to plead his case before the commission last month, Taylor declined to appear. His wife, Jodi, appeared instead, but told commissioners that her husband had asked her not to answer questions on his behalf.
Taylor’s campaign declined to comment Wednesday on the Alaska Democratic Party’s court filing.
The Division of Elections is required to begin mailing ballots for the November election on Sept. 18.
Department of Law findings
In her decision to restore Tagle and Taylor onto the ballot, Dahlstrom credited a list compiled by the Department of Law last week that flagged 91 candidates who may have omitted some details from their financial disclosure statements.
The list has spurred concern and ire from some of those who appear on it, who say the information released by the department is in some cases wrong, misleading or inappropriate.
Croft said Wednesday that in response to the list, “there are a whole bunch of candidates who are some level of freaking out.”
In an email he sent to Democratic candidates, Croft said he believes that “it was irresponsible to make the list public without checking the information with the filer or performing due diligence to assure accuracy.”
Croft called the Department of Law’s decision to compile the list and release it to the public “a blatant attempt to keep their former boss Mr. Taylor on the ballot for governor.”
Department of Law Civil Division Director Rachel Witty said Monday that the findings were preliminary and it was up to the Public Offices Commission, which is not under the jurisdiction of the Department of Law, to investigate the candidates if warranted.
The Public Offices Commission has not publicly commented on the list or any steps it plans to take in response to its release.
Some candidates are already proactively amending their financial disclosures to include information found by the Department of Law that they had previously left off, including Democratic candidate for governor Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, who listed affiliations with two nonprofit entities not previously disclosed.
Several sitting lawmakers and legislative candidates also amended their disclosures to add property details and volunteer positions, among other changes.
Rep. Kevin McCabe, a Big Lake Republican who amended his form this week to clarify property holding, said in a text message that the commission’s rules are “archaic and outdated.”
“Their forms and drop-down menus do not fit today’s digital world,” said McCabe, adding that he has tried to amend the laws governing the commission in recent years, only to encounter pushback from other lawmakers.
Rep. Julie Coulombe, an Anchorage Republic