Could Ballot Measure 2 lead to closed primaries in Alaska? Maybe.

Could a November ballot measure lead the Alaska Republican Party to close its primaries to non-party members?

The short answer is maybe.

The main question before Alaska voters with Ballot Measure 2 is whether to repeal the state’s new voting system, which includes ranked choice voting and open top-four primaries. But opponents of the measure say that if it passes, it would also allow parties to close their primaries.

The group opposing the November ballot measure has been running advertisements warning voters of that potential outcome — forcing Alaska voters to register with a political party in order to cast a primary ballot. This is a possibility, group leaders say, even if parties have never taken advantage of the option before.

Proponents of Ballot Measure 2 are arguing that it is misleading to tell voters that the measure could lead to closed partisan primaries — going so far as to send letters to television stations demanding that they stop running ads with that message.

Alaska’s current voting system, itself adopted by ballot measure in 2020, places all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, on the same primary ballot. The top four primary vote-getters advance to ranked-choice general elections.

The former voting system, in place until 2022, allowed political parties to hold partisan primaries and determine which voters could participate in those primaries. This type of system is broadly referred to as a “partially closed” primary system, meaning it is up to political parties to determine how restrictive they would like to be.

The Alaska Republican Party, along with other political parties in the state, had for decades allowed nonpartisan and undeclared voters to cast ballots in their partisan primaries without registering with a party.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, there are 10 states that have fully “closed” primaries, meaning only registered members of a political party can vote in that party’s primary election.

[How a single education vote is shaping legislative races across Alaska]

Some of the advertisements from the “No on 2″ group state that Ballot Measure 2 would “force thousands of veterans and active duty military to join a political party just to participate in Alaska’s primary elections.” Many military members generally prefer not to join a political party, though it is not forbidden by law.

The November ballot measure does include a provision under which the Alaska Division of Elections “may not permit a voter registered as nonpartisan or undeclared to vote a party’s ballot if the party’s bylaws restrict participation by nonpartisan or undeclared voters in the party’s primary.” A similar provision existed in state law prior to 2020.

Members of the Alaska GOP, which has endorsed Ballot Measure 2, say that current bylaws do not restrict participation by nonpartisan and undeclared voters. It is not clear if that will change.

Alaska GOP Chair Carmela Warfield did not respond to a request for comment.

‘Loose talk’

Loren Leman, a Republican former lieutenant governor of Alaska, said the No on 2 advertising contains misinformation, because “it would not be a wise thing” for the party to exclude non-members from its primary.

“It would be incredibly disastrous for the Republican Party to exclude” nonpartisan and undeclared voters, who make up nearly 59% of the electorate, said Leman.

But former Alaska GOP Chair Ann Brown said the option has previously been considered by party leaders.

“About eight or 10 years ago, there was talk in the party, amongst insiders, that what we ought to do is take … the primary in-house, and hold the primary at a convention,” said Brown, who concluded her chairmanship of the party earlier this year.

The advantage of doing so, Brown said, would be that “the party would have greater control over its candidates, because the party faithful would be at the conventions, voting for those candidates and you wouldn’t have any outsiders who aren’t Republicans picking our candidates.”

Brown said the disadvantages considered at the time were “that you are creating a very closed circle of primary voters when presumably the party would like to reach out and have a big tent and attract many people to the Republican Party.” The proposal “remained loose talk” and never translated to a change in bylaws, according to Brown.

Randy Ruedrich, who chaired the Alaska Republican Party between 2000 and 2013, said the idea of closing the Republican primary “never got any traction at a state convention.” Ruedrich said “there were a few ideologues who argued” in favor of electing Republican candidates through a convention, and the idea was not pursued by the party.

“Very few people were advocating for that, and they had no ability to even get it through a committee at a state convention,” said Ruedrich.

The Alaska Republican Party has previously sought to narrow the voters who could weigh in on their primary elections. Until the early 1990s, all candidates in Alaska appeared on the same blanket primary ballot.

[Industry groups oppose Alaska minimum wage ballot initiative, but say no campaign spending is planned]

In 1992, the Alaska Republican Party sued the state of Alaska in federal court over the constitutionality of the blanket primary system. The state sought to defend its system, but it was ultimately replaced with partisan primaries after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that blanket primaries were unconstitutional. At the time, Republicans agreed to include nonpartisan and undeclared voters in their primary.

“The reason that was probably agreed to by Republicans initially was that … most undeclared voters in the state model as Republicans,” said Brown, meaning that nonpartisan and undeclared voters largely align with the GOP on some issues.

Opponents of this year’s ballot measure point to statements from the initiative’s backers, who have indicated that a closed primary system could be favored.

Phillip Izon, the author of this year’s ballot measure, said that though he is a nonpartisan voter, he supports closed partisan primaries, and supports the language included in the ballot measure that would allow political parties to close their primaries to non-members.

“If you want to vote for a Republican candidate, then you should be a registered Republican. If you want to vote for a Democratic candidate, then you should be a registered Democrat,” said Izon, who was previously a registered Republican but changed his party affiliation to nonpartisan.

The Alaska Democratic Party is not in favor of Ballot Measure 2. Until 2022, Alaska Democrats shared a primary ballot with other political parties, excluding the GOP.

Targeting moderates

The Alaska Republican Party has openly supported this year’s Ballot Measure 2, which would allow the party to regain some control over selected GOP candidates, party leaders have said.

The current system, they argue, allows candidates who don’t align with the party’s platform to run as Republicans. Already there is evidence that Alaska voters are rejecting some of the party officials’ preferences. In 2022, Alaskans voted again for Republican U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, despite the fact that the Alaska Republican Party had censured her and endorsed another GOP candidate in the race.

Similar examples abound in legislative races. In an Eagle River Senate race, Alaska Republican leaders have spent significant resources trying to defeat GOP incumbent Sen. Kelly Merrick, who was previously censured by the party for her willingness to join a bipartisan coalition.

The Republican Party is the largest political party in the state, but its members account for less than 24% of Alaska voters. Nonpartisan and undeclared voters account for nearly 59% of Alaska voters.

While the Alaska GOP had allowed nonpartisan and undeclared voters to cast ballots in the Republican primary prior to 2022, there is no guarantee that will continue to be the case, opponents of the ballot measure argue.

“When you see somebody write a new law that specifically allows that, and then there’s statements that say that that’s specifically what they want to do, I guess I’m not sure why we wouldn’t think that might not be an outcome,” said Juli Lucky, director of Alaskans for Better Elections, an organization that advocates for the state’s current election system.

Evidence from 2022 indicates that the open primary system has led to the election of more centrist candidates, particularly in races where moderate Republicans would have been edged out by more conservative Republicans in a partisan primary under the previous system.

Dueling over ads

The campaign to defeat Ballot Measure 2 — and much of its advertising — has focused on the impacts of the measure on the state’s primary system, rather than the ranked choice general election method.

Seeking to halt the advertisements run by the No on 2 campaign, the Yes on 2 campaign sent a letter to several television stations demanding that they remove the advertisement from the airwaves because it contains “false information.”

Mikaela Emswiler, chair of the Yes on 2 campaign, did not respond to a request for comment.

In a response letter from the No on 2 campaign last month, attorney Thomas Amodio wrote that the ad “accurately describes” the ballot measure.

“A plain reading of the statute proposed by (Ballot Measure 2) allows parties to exclude voters not registered in their party,” Amodio wrote.

Supporters of Ballot Measure 2 have bemoaned the flood of ads from the No on 2 group, noting that ample funding from national groups supporting election reform has allowed the No on 2 group to be more visible than the campaign supporting the ballot measure, which has not seen major support from national organizations.

The No on 2 campaign has reported raising nearly $7.9 million, while the group supporting the ballot measure has raised only $102,000.

Most of the spending to defend Alaska’s current election system comes from organizations that backed the system when it was originally on Alaska’s 2020 ballot. The organizations are also backing ballot initiatives in numerous other states that would implement ranked choice voting, open primaries, or a combination of the two in states that include Montana and Nevada, among others.

Opponents of ranked choice voting pointed to a lack of awareness in the Lower 48 to explain their fundraising challenges.

“I personally went with a tin cup around to hundreds and hundreds of people all over the United States trying to raise money to get rid of ranked choice voting. I would say the topic is so niche that very few people on the money side of things were willing to commit to actually doing anything against it,” said Izon.