Lance Pruitt v. State of Alaska, Office of Lt. Governor Kevin Meyer, Division of Elections, Director Gail Fenumiai, and Elizabeth A. Hodges Snyder
498 P.3d 591
Alaska2021Background
- Lance Pruitt (incumbent) lost the 2020 general election for Alaska House District 27 to Elizabeth Snyder by 11 votes after recount; Pruitt filed an election contest challenging various election practices.
- Pruitt’s operative claim (Count II) alleged the Division of Elections violated AS 15.10.090 by failing to give required public notice after a last-minute polling place move (27-915 moved twice in 2020; final move to Begich Middle School on Oct. 27).
- The Division updated its website and hotline and posted signs, but did not mail notices, publish newspaper notice, include the change in the official pamphlet, or notify the Anchorage municipal clerk; it explained some methods were infeasible due to timing.
- The superior court dismissed most counts for failure to state a claim but nonetheless heard evidence on Count II, found partial statutory noncompliance but no malconduct (no significant deviation, scienter, or bias), and found Pruitt failed to show the violations were sufficient to change the election result.
- The Alaska Supreme Court reversed the dismissal (holding the complaint adequately pleaded an election contest) but affirmed on the merits — concluding the Division’s conduct did not constitute malconduct sufficient to change the outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) proper for failure to plead malconduct with particularity? | Pruitt: ordinary pleading suffices; he alleged statutory notice violations that could support malconduct. | Division: election contests require heightened particularity; dismissal proper. | Reversed dismissal — no heightened pleading standard; complaint sufficiently pled facts that could support malconduct. |
| 2. Does AS 15.10.090 apply to temporary or last‑minute polling place changes? | Pruitt: statute requires notice for any change, including late changes. | Division: statute should be read not to apply to last‑minute/temporary moves because some notice methods may be impossible. | Held statute applies to polling place changes generally; impossibility may excuse specific notice types but statute contains no blanket last‑minute exemption. |
| 3. Did the Division’s notice failures amount to malconduct (significant deviation, bias, or scienter)? | Pruitt: failure to provide required notice (and delay in securing locations) was a significant deviation and biased against his voters. | Division: made feasible efforts (website, hotline, signs); missed only municipal‑clerk notice and some notices were infeasible; no scienter or bias. | Held no malconduct: the single omission (municipal clerk) was not a significant deviation, and there was no evidence of scienter or conduct that influenced voters to vote a certain way. |
| 4. If malconduct existed, was it sufficient to change the election result? | Pruitt: expert modeled an "undervote" (57 votes) in 27‑915 that, allocated proportionally, would flip the 11‑vote margin. | Division: expert critique showed flawed assumptions; plaintiff failed to show actual prevented votes. | Held Pruitt failed to prove at least 11 voters were prevented from voting due to notice failures; expert assumptions were unreliable; result not changed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nageak v. Mallott, 426 P.3d 930 (Alaska 2018) (malconduct requires conduct that influences voters to vote a certain way or scienter; standards for review)
- Hammond v. Hickel, 588 P.2d 256 (Alaska 1978) (defines malconduct as significant deviation; describes cumulation of irregularities and method to allocate missing votes)
- Dale v. Greater Anchorage Area Borough, 439 P.2d 790 (Alaska 1968) (statutory conditions precedent to contest must be satisfied; compliance with procedural prerequisites)
- Boucher v. Bomhoff, 495 P.2d 77 (Alaska 1972) (malconduct is more than lack of total exact compliance)
- Miller v. Treadwell, 245 P.3d 867 (Alaska 2010) (election challenges must plead and prove elements of election contest under statutory scheme)
- Guerrero v. Alaska Hous. Fin. Corp., 6 P.3d 250 (Alaska 2000) (standards for evaluating Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
- Knutson v. Knutson, 973 P.2d 596 (Alaska 1999) (deference to trial court credibility determinations when weighing conflicting expert testimony)