Oral arguments in the case seeking to undo Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell's emergency order that allowed two gubernatorial campaigns to merge will be heard in one week on Sept. 26.
With the state having already mailed more than 2,300 ballots for the Nov. 4 general election, Anchorage Superior Court Judge John Suddock on Thursday set an expedited schedule to deal with the lawsuit against Treadwell and Elections Division director Gail Fenumiai. In it, Steve Strait, a Republican district chair in Anchorage, argues that Treadwell and the Elections Division should not have issued an emergency regulation approving the ticket because there was no threat to public welfare.
The status hearing in Suddock's courtroom laid out a plan for hearing the civil case and came one day after Strait filed the lawsuit. His lawyer is Ken Jacobus, a former attorney for the Alaska Republican party.
Discussion among the judge and attorneys addressed the accuracy of the details presented in Strait's filing and how much role they should play in the arguments. The lawsuit generally argues that Alaska's umbrella labor organization, the AFL-CIO, orchestrated the creation of the "nonparty" ticket that brought together former registered Republican Bill Walker with former Democratic gubernatorial pick Byron Mallott. It says the rights of primary-election voters, such as those who had selected Mallott to be the Democratic choice for governor and not a nonparty lieutenant governor choice, were violated.
Suddock allowed the attorney for the Walker-Mallot campaign, Scott Kendall with Holmes, Weddle and Barcott, to intervene in the case as a defendant.
Walker campaign spokeswoman Lindsay Hobson said the campaign wants the right to appeal if needed, and the option to address any unique arguments in the possibility they are not addressed by the state.
All sides agreed that the political details leading to the decision will play at best a minimal role in the arguments to come -- a position Suddock reinforced in lighthearted remarks to Jacobus.
"We don't want to go back to your brief with a magnifying glass and see where you put spin on the ball in the Jacobus manner," Suddock told Jacobus, summarizing the position of Kendall and state attorney Margaret Paton-Walsh and drawing laughter from the small group gathered to observe the proceedings.
The state argues that the emergency regulation is in line with law and precedent, and that the political details are irrelevant to the case. "Under the law, it doesn't matter that his facts are true," said Paton-Walsh. "Under the law, we would still prevail."
"Even if it is accurate to the last iota it would not matter," Suddock said, of those details.
Jacobus said he would not argue the details in the complaint very much, "except to the extent they might affect people's "constitutional rights."