Lake & Peninsula Borough Assembly v. Oberlatz, 329 P.3d 214

Five voters with homes in and outside the Lake & Peninsula Borough faced residency challenges in 2010 and 2011 elections; the Borough canvassing committee concluded they were not borough residents and thus ineligible to vote.
The voters challenged the residency determinations in separate lawsuits against the Borough and certain officials, culminating in consolidated proceedings after a trial de novo on residency.
The superior court found the voters were borough residents for both elections and that L&PBC 04.15.020 and related processes were unconstitutional, also ruling on attorney fees via Rule 82.
The court held the voters would remain eligible to vote in future elections absent substantial changes, but vacated a provision predetermining future eligibility and remanded for new fee determinations.
The Borough appealed residency rulings; the voters appealed attorney-fee rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the voters were borough residents for 2010 and 2011	Oberlatz/Gillam: residents; intent to remain in Borough supported by evidence	Borough: residency standards not satisfied; contrary intent shown	Yes; voters were borough residents for both elections
Whether the trial court properly applied residency standards	Voters: trial court properly weighed subjective intent with objective indicia	Borough: court failed to apply Borough standards 04.15.020	Court did not err in weighing intent; Borough standards not binding to override trial findings
Whether AS 09.60.010(c) applies to attorney fees for constitutional claims	Voters: claims involve constitutional right to vote; full fees may be awarded	Borough/defendants: statute applies only to constitutional-right cases	Voters may be entitled to full fees for constitutional claims; remanded for fee recalculation
Whether the order predetermining future eligibility should stand	Voters: future eligibility should not be presumed without regard to law	Borough: need for continued eligibility determinations by election officials	Paragraph 7 vacated; future eligibility to be determined under proper law on remand

City of Nome v. Catholic Bishop of N. Alaska, 707 P.2d 870 (Alaska 1985) (standard of review and constitutional-right analysis guidance)
Burgess Constr. Co. v. Smallwood, 698 P.2d 1206 (Alaska 1985) (statutory and constitutional interpretation alignment in disputes)
Alliance of Concerned Taxpayers, Inc. v. Kenai Peninsula Borough, 273 P.3d 1128 (Alaska 2012) (identify right’s source to determine applicability of attorney-fee statute)