LANCE PRUITT, Aрpellant, v. STATE OF ALASKA, OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, and KEVIN MEYER, in an official capacity; DIVISION OF ELECTIONS, and GAIL FENUMIAI, in an official capacity. Appellees, and ELIZABETH A. HODGES SNYDER, Intervenor.
Supreme Court No. S-17971
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
November 12, 2021
Opinion No. 7565
Superior Court No. 3AN-20-09661 CI
Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC REPORTER. Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email corrections@akcourts.gov.
Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Josie Garton, Judge.
Appearances: Stacey C. Stone, Holmes Weddle & Barcott, P.C., Anchorage, for Appellant. Laura Fox, Thomas S. Flynn, Margaret Paton Walsh, Assistant Attorneys General, Anchorage, and Clyde “Ed” Sniffen, Jr., Acting Attorney General, Juneau, for Appellees. Holly C. Wells and Jennifer C. Alexander, Birch Horton Bittner & Cherot, Anchorage, for Intervenor.
Before: Bolger, Chief Justice, Winfree, Maassen, Carney, and Borghesan, Justices.
I. INTRODUCTION
After a narrow loss in the general election for Alaska House District 27, Lance Pruitt brought an election contest challenging the result. The superior court dismissed Pruitt‘s multi-count complaint for failure to state a valid claim. But in order to expedite the case‘s eventual review, the court heard еvidence on a single count:1 Pruitt‘s claim that the Division of Elections committed malconduct that influenced the election by moving a polling place without notifying the public in all the ways required by law. After considering the evidence, the superior court ruled that Pruitt did not show either that the lack of notice amounted to malconduct or that it was sufficient to change the results of the election. Pruitt appealed only the count on which the court heard evidence. In order to resolve this election contest before the start of the legislative session, we issued a brief order stating that Pruitt had not met his
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Incumbent Lance Pruitt and challenger Elizabeth Snyder ran in the November 3, 2020 general election to represent House District 27. On November 30 the Division of Elections certified Snyder as the winning candidate by a margin of 13 votes. A recount оn December 4 narrowed Snyder‘s margin of victory to 11 votes.
A. Initial Proceedings
On December 9 Pruitt and six other plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Director of the State‘s Division of Elections and Lieutenant Governor Kevin Meyer (collectively “the Division“).2 The plaintiffs contested the election under
Both Snyder and the Division moved to dismiss Pruitt‘s complaint. On December 22 the superior court granted the motion to dismiss on all counts. It also dismissed Pruitt‘s December 14 amended complaint as untimely. But in light of the short time frame for resolving the election contest, the court oрted to take testimony on Count II, explaining that this count had been dismissed “because of what [the court] would describe as a pleading error.”
Count II of Pruitt‘s complaint3 alleged that the Division had violated
B. Hearing On Pruitt‘s Claim Related To Inadequate Notice
At a hearing on December 22 and 23, the superior court took evidence about the two polling place changes. The polling place was first changed in August 2020 — prior to the 2020 primary election — from Wayland Baptist University to Muldoon Town Center. It was then changed in October 2020 — prior to the 2020 general election — from Muldoon Town Center to Begich Middle School.
A precinct chairperson for 27-9154 testified that he went to Wayland Baptist University the day before the August 18 primary election to make sure that the booths were
Julie Husmann, the Region 2 Elections Supervisor, received the call. She decided to move the polling place to Muldoon Town Center because it was the “closest polling place available . . . that would be able to handle . . . the voter turnout.” In order to notify voters about the change in polling place, Husmann had a poster made up and gave it to a field worker. She testified that no other notice was provided of the polling place change, noting that “[i]t was very quick, a lot going on.”
After the primary election, the Division of Elections assumed that Muldoon Town Center would be the 27-915 polling place for the 2020 general election. Around October 22, Husmann contacted Muldoon Town Center to verify that it would again be available as a polling place. The owner of the Muldoon Town Center indicated that he did not want the сenter to serve as the polling place for 27-915.
Husmann testified that immediately after learning Muldoon Town Center was no longer available, she contacted the Anchorage School District. The district had previously offered to make its schools available as polling places. On October 22 Husmann sent the school district a formal letter asking to use Begich Middle School as the polling place for 27-915. The district replied that the request had been tentatively approved subject to formal approval by the school‘s principal. Formal approval was received on October 26, and Begich Middle School was confirmed as the polling place location on October 27.
Witnesses from the Division testified about the efforts they made to provide public notice of the change. Alaska Statute 15.10.090 requires that the Division provide public notice of a polling place change by: (1) sending written notice to each voter in the precinct “whenever possible“; (2) publishing notice in a local newspaper; (3) posting the change on the Division‘s website; (4) notifying relevant municipal clerks, community councils, and tribal entities; and (5) noting the change in the official election pamphlet. Division Director Gail Fenumiai testified that with the late change, there was not enough time to mail notice to voters, publish notice in the official election pamphlet (which had already been mailed to voters), or place an ad in the newspaper. Husmann testified that the Division updated its website and polling place locator hotline to reflect the new polling place, and put up posters and A-frame signs at the old and new polling places to guide voters to the correct polling place. However, the Division did not notify the Anchorage municipal clerk of the change.
Pruitt called a witness to show that at least one voter was frustrated by the polling place change and ultimately did not vote. Mary Jo Cunniff, a realtor from Anchorage, testified that on the day of the general election she left her home at “about 8:20, 8:30” in the morning to go to Wayland Baptist University to vote. When she got there, she saw a sign telling her to go to Begiсh Middle School to vote instead. Cunniff testified that she was “kind of mad” because she had planned her day around voting and because “there had been nothing in the news” about the polling place change. By the time she got to Begich, between 8:30 and 8:45, “many, many, many people were there.” Cunniff testified that she knew she‘d “never make” her 10:00 appointment if she stayed to vote, so she left without voting. She then had back-to-back appointments for the rest of the day and ultimately did not vote. A 27-915 precinct co-chair testified that election day voters at Begich Middle School were confused by the change.
Finally, Pruitt presented the testimony of an expert witness, Randolph Ruedrich. Ruedrich opined that, based on his modeling of registration and turnout statistics in precinct 27-915 and neighboring precincts, the Division‘s actions were sufficient to change the result of the election. The Division presented its own expert, Ralph Townsend, who opined that Ruedrich‘s analysis was flawed in several ways.
On December 29 the superior court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding Count II. It held that the Division did not fully comply with
On December 30 Pruitt appealed, challenging the superior court‘s rulings on Count II only.
III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint under
dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”7
“Whether the conduct of election officials constitutes malconduct and whether that malconduct was sufficient to change the result of an election are questions of law.”8 We “review questions of law de novo, ‘adopting the rule of law most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy.’ ”9 Underlying findings of fact are reviewed for clear error, which exists when our “review of the record leaves us with the definite and firm conviction that the superior court has made a mistake.”10
IV. DISCUSSION
A. It Was Error To Dismiss Count II Of The Complaint For Failure To State A Claim For Which Relief May Be Granted.
Alaska law allows a losing candidate to contest the outcome of an election by proving “malconduct, fraud, or corruption on the part of an election official sufficient to change the result of the election.”11 If the challenger makes this showing, the superior court must “pronounce judgment on which candidate was elеcted or nominated” or, if it decides “that no candidate was duly elected or nominated,” order that “the contested election be set aside.”12
The mere fact that an election law has been violated does not amount to malconduct. Rather, proving “malconduct” requires showing “a significant deviation from statutorily or constitutionally prescribed norms.”13
The superior court dismissed Count II of Pruitt‘s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted18 because Pruitt did not allege that the Division‘s failure to provide the statutorily required notice introduced bias or was committed with scienter. The superior court stated that election contestants “must strictly comply with the statutory requirements,” citing Dale v. Greater Anchorage Area Borough.19 But neither Dale nor any of our other cases creates a heightened pleading standard in election contests, and Count II of Pruitt‘s complaint survives dismissal under the ordinary standard for Rule 12(b)(6). The Division argues that we may affirm dismissal on the alternative theory that the Division did not violate
1. There is no heightened standard of pleading for election contests.
There is no statute, court rule,20 or precedent requiring special particularity in рleading election contest claims, and we decline to create such a rule now. Rather, these claims are subject to the usual standard, under which motions to dismiss are “viewed with disfavor and should only be granted on the rare occasion where ‘it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claims that would entitle the plaintiff to relief.’ ”21
In dismissing Count II for failure to state a claim, the superior court cited Dale, in which we stated that “the failure of a contestant to observe strict compliance with the statutory requirements is fatal to his right to have an election contested.”22 But Dale does not establish a higher pleading standard in election cases. In that case a plaintiff bringing an election contest claim failed to follow a statutory requirement that she deliver written notice of her election contest to the borough assembly.23 We held that “[c]ompliance with this requirement of the ordinance was a condition precedent to [the plaintiff‘s] invoking the power of the court to have the election declared invalid“; beсause the plaintiff had failed to meet this condition, “her complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief
The superior court reasoned that a plaintiff must plead detailed allegations so the Division can respond within the short deadline typical of an election contest. But the expedited nature of election contests cuts both ways.25 A plaintiff may know that a
law has been violated but lack time to gather evidence of bias or scienter, which will often be under the defendants’ control when the suit is brought. Requiring plaintiffs to plead with greater-than-normal particularity could block potentially meritorious election contests. We therefore decline to establish a heightened pleading standard based on election contests’ expedited nature.
2. The language of the complaint sufficiently states an election cоntest claim.
Although Pruitt‘s complaint does not use the term “malconduct,” Count II clearly describes an election contest claim. The complaint invoked
Pruitt‘s failure to use the word “malconduct” is not fatal. Whether behavior constitutes malconduct is a question of law.26 Because “conclusions of law are not considered admitted in resolving” Rule 12(b)(6) motions,27 it would be incongruous to require plaintiffs to include a legal conclusion in order to avoid dismissal under
Rule 12(b)(6). For this same reason we reject the Division‘s argument that Pruitt failed to state a claim because he did not specifically allege a “signifiсant deviation” from statutory norms; this too is a legal conclusion.28
Nor is it even necessary to allege malconduct in order to state an election contest claim under
It is true that different kinds of malconduct exist and that Pruitt‘s complaint fails to specify which kind is alleged here. But given the disfavor with which we treat dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), we decline to require plaintiffs to allege a specific type of malconduct in order to survive. It is difficult for a plaintiff to obtain evidence of scienter, for example, within the compressed timeline of an election contest claim. A plaintiff who knows that an election norm has been violated but does not yet have access to the defendant‘s mental state may need to bring an election contest claim before knowing if the alleged malconduct was committed with or without scienter.
Snyder suggests that Miller v. Treadwell supports dismissal, but that is not so. In Miller we remanded a defeated candidate‘s lawsuit (which was not framed as a recount
For these reаsons Pruitt‘s complaint, construed in the light most favorable to him as the non-moving party,32 sufficiently states a claim on which relief may be granted.
3. We cannot affirm on the alternative ground that statutory notice requirements do not apply to temporary or last-minute polling place changes.
The Division argues that we may affirm dismissal of Count II on the alternative ground that
When construing statutes “we consider three factors: ‘the language of the statute, the legislative history, and the legislative purpose behind the statute.’ ”33 Under our sliding scale approach to statutory interpretation, “[t]he plainer the language of the statute, the more convincing contrary legislative history must be.”34
“Interpretation of a statute begins with its text.”35 The text of
The director shall give full public notice if a precinct is established оr abolished, if the boundaries of a precinct are designated, abolished, or modified, or if the location of a polling place is changed. Public notice must include
(1) whenever possible, sending written notice of the change to each affected registered voter in the precinct;
(2) providing notice of the change
(A) by publication once in a local newspaper of general circulation in the precinct; or
(B) if there is not a local newspaper of general circulation in the precinct, by posting written notice in three conspicuous places as close to the precinct as possible; at least one posting location must be in the precinct;
(3) posting notice of the change on the Internet website of the division of elections;
(4) providing notification of the change to the appropriate municipal clerks, community councils, tribal groups, Native villages, and village regional corporations established under
43 U.S.C. 1606 (Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act); and
(5) inclusion in the official election pamphlet.
The statute straightforwardly says that the Division “shall give full public notice . . . if the location of a polling place is changed.” The text mаkes no distinction between “permanent” and “temporary” or “emergency” polling place changes.
Uncertainty about whether this otherwise plain command applies to last-minute changes stems from the fact that it may not be possible to provide each type of notice in the event of a change shortly before the election. Subsection (1) requires the Division to send written notice of a change to voters “whenever possible.” At first blush it seems incongruous that the other subsections do not make similar allowance for impossibility. But the caveat in subsection (1) may refer not to timing but to the fact that not all registered voters may be reached by mail.36 If that is so, then none of the five notice requirements expressly account for impossibility due to last-minute polling place changes. The Division argues this omission reflects an intent to exclude last-minute changes from the statutory notice requirements altogether.37 But absent an express exemption for last-minute changes, the statutory command to give “full public notice . . .
if the location of a polling place is changed”38 seems equally susceptible to the inference that the legislature intended the Division to provide the required types of notice for all changes when feasible to do so. Faced with the choice of which implied caveat to read into the statute — either it exempts late changes entirely or merely exempts the Division from doing the impossible — we find the latter more consistent with the overall statutory purpose of notifying voters of polling place changes.39
The legislative history does suggest that the legislature was not specifically targeting last-minute changes when it drafted the notice statute. For example, testimony from the then-Director of the Division of Elections makes clear that the election pamphlet was expected to include only polling place changes that occurred before its publication.40 And it indicates that the legislature expected all polling places to be printed in the newspaper on a single occasion, rather than continuous publication of each individual polling place change throughout the year.41
But not specifically contemplating what notice may be required in the event of last-minute changes is different than specifically intending to exempt last-minute changes from any notice requirement. The Division has not proffered legislative history that
In sum, the text of
B. The Superior Court Did Not Err In Concluding That Pruitt Failed To Meet His Burden To Prove His Election Contest Claim.
1. The superior court did not err in concluding that the Division did not commit malconduct.
To prevail in his election contest, Pruitt had to first prove “malconduct . . . on the part of an election official.”43 “Malconduct” means a “significant deviation” from a legal or constitutional requirement, not just a “lack of total and exact compliance” with that requirement.44 In addition tо showing that the alleged conduct was a significant deviation, Pruitt had to prove one of three things to establish malconduct. First, he could show that the Division‘s violations of
The superior court concluded that Pruitt had not established malconduct. First, it held that the Division‘s violations of
a. The Division‘s failure to confirm the polling place location earlier cannot be the basis for malconduct absent a legal duty to confirm polling places by a certain date.
Pruitt argues that the Division‘s violations of
The statutory text — the starting point for our analysis — does not mention anything about when a polling place must be confirmed.50 The legislature could have added language requiring the Division to verify the location of a polling place within a certain number of days before the election, but it did not do so. The absence of an express duty to confirm polling place locations by a certain date is especially significant in light of
Instead Pruitt advances what is essentially a policy argument. If the Division has no deadline for confirming polling places, then it could delay doing so until a day or two before the election, when very little notice would be possible. Absent a basis in text or legislative history, however, we cannot impose a duty on the Division to confirm places by a certain date simply because it might be a good idea to do so. “We are not vested with the authority to add missing terms [to a statute] or hypothesize differently worded provisions in order to reach a particular result.”53 Rather than add substantive requirements to the statute, we trust in the good faith of election officials to make sure all Alaskans are able to vote and the wisdom of the legislature in guiding these officials’ behavior. Pruitt has identified no law that obliged the Division to confirm the location of the 27-915 polling place by a certain date, so the Division’s failure to act sooner is not grounds for a finding of malconduct.
b. The superior court did not err in holding that the Division’s violations of AS 15.10.090 were not a significant deviation from the law.
“Malconduct” “means a significant deviation from statutorily or constitutionally prescribed norms,”54 which is something “more than a lack of total and exact compliance
Alaska Statute 15.10.090 requires five forms of notice: (1) “whenever possible, sending written notice of the change to each affected registered voter in the precinct”; (2) notice “by publication once in a local newspaper of general circulation in the precinct”; (3) notice “on the Internet website of the division of elections”; (4) notice “to the appropriate municipal clerks, community councils, tribal groups, Native villages, and village regional corporations”; and (5) notice in “the official election pamphlet.” The superior court found that the only required notice that could reasonably have been given but was not was notifying the municipal clerk.56 This finding is not clearly erroneous, and this single failure was not a significant deviation from the statutory norm.57
The Division did not send voters written notice of the move to Begich Middle School. Director of the Division of Elections Gail Fenumiai testified that there had been no time “to procure a printing company to do the mailing” and no staff available to mail out the notices. Because unrebutted testimony indicated that sending written notice would not have been possible, the Division did not violate
The Division also did not publish notice of the move in an Anchorage newspaper as required under subpart (2). Fenumiai testified that the Division concluded “there just wasn’t adequate time” to do so. Nor did it include notice of the change in the official election pamphlet as required under subpart (5); testimony indicated that the pamphlet had already been mailed out by the time of the change. The legislative history shows that the legislature did not intend the Division to accomplish the impossible feat of including in the election pamphlet notice of changes that had not occurred by the time the pamphlet was printed.58 We conclude that it similarly did not intend the Division to publish notice of the change in the newspaper when doing so would be infeasible. Bеcause unrebutted testimony established that publication in a newspaper or the election pamphlet would not have been possible, the Division did not violate subparts (2) or (5).
The Division’s website was updated to reflect the move as required under subpart (3). A precinct chairperson for 27-915 testified that on the day of the general election, one page of the Division’s website listed either Wayland Baptist University or Muldoon Town Center as the polling place for 27-915. However, when he clicked on that location, it “took [him] to another screen that . . . did locate Begich Middle School as being the location for 27-915.” The chairperson reported the problem with the website to the Division. Although this may have been a minor mistake on the Division’s part, the Division largely complied with the directive to update its website.
Finally, the Division failed to inform the Anchorage clerk of the new polling location as required under subpart (4). As the only feasible form of required notice that the Division
c. The superior court did not err in rejecting Pruitt’s argument that bias was introduced.
Even if Pruitt had shown that the Division’s violations amounted to a significant deviation, in order to prove malconduct he would have also needed to show that they were committed with scientier or that they introduced bias into the vote.61 Pruitt argued to the trial court that the lack of required notice introduced bias because it did not have “a random impact on voter behavior.” Asserting that “Republicans outnumbered Democrats voting in [27-915] on Election Day,” Pruitt argued the lack of notice “imped[ed] more Republican votes than Democrat votes” and therefore “bias was absolutely introduced.” The superior court rejected this argument in its order dismissing Pruitt’s complaint. Pruitt reprises this argument on appeal.
Nageak v. Mallott plainly forecloses this argument. In Nageak, the superior court “found that the election officials’ actions constituted bias ‘because they ocсurred in a precinct that lopsidedly favored [one candidate].’ ”62 We held the finding erroneous because bias only “exists at the malconduct stage when conduct of election officials influences voters to vote a certain way.”63 Because the Division’s failure to give full public notice of a polling place change does not “influence[] voters to vote a certain way,” Pruitt cannot show that the Division’s violation of
d. The superior court did not clearly err in finding that Pruitt failed to show that violations of AS 15.10.090 were imbued with scienter.
The second way that Pruitt could show malconduct is by showing that the Division violated
The superior court found that “[t]he Division, the Director, the Region II Supervisor, and other Division employees acted in good faith in attempting to notify affected voters about the change to the polling location.” It did not find that any deviation from
Pruitt argues that the Division “knew it had an issue with the []27-915 polling location on August 17, and . . . took no timely efforts to secure a polling place for []27-915 voters for the General Election.” It claims that the Division “created a situation where it was unable to notify voters timely and in a proper fashion of the change” and that the Division’s “dilatory conduct cannot be considered good faith.” But this argument assumes that
On that score, the superior court did not clearly err in finding a lack of scienter.
2. The superior court did not err in concluding that any malconduct was not sufficient to change the outcome of the election.
To prevail in an election contest, the plaintiff must prove that any malconduct was “sufficient to change the result of the election.”66 Therefore Pruitt must show that the Division’s failure to provide notice of the polling place change prevented enough people from voting to change the outcome. It is not enоugh to show that the polling place change itself caused voter confusion; the alleged malconduct is not the polling place change, but the Division’s failure to provide required notice of that change. It is also not enough to show that voters in 27-915 did not know where their polling place was, as many voters in any given year may not know their polling place. Rather, Pruitt had to show that a number of voters sufficient to change the result of the election attempted to vote at the former location and were not redirected to Begich Middle School with enough time to vote before the polls closed.67 This burden is a heavy one, consistent with our commitment to “indulging every reasonable presumption in favor of the validity of an election.”68 In this case the superior court found that Pruitt failed to show that “at least 11 registered voters” (Snyder’s margin of victory) “were prevented from voting because they did not receive actual notice of the polling place change.” Because this finding is not clearly erroneous, we agree with the court’s conclusion that Pruitt did not show that the Division’s failure to provide the statutorily-required notice was “sufficient to change the result of the election.”69
Pruitt’s argument rests on the testimony of his expert, Randolph Ruedrich. Ruedrich analyzed 2020 election day turnout in precincts 27-910, 27-915, and 27-920, noting that the turnout in 27-910 was 3.32% above 27-915, and that the turnout in 27-920 was 3.99% above 27-915. Averaging these differences, he calculated that the “undervote” in 27-915 was 3.66% relative to precincts 910 and 920. Applying this percentage to the total number of registered votes for the 2020 general election, Ruedrich concluded that “at minimum, this demonstrated [House District] 27 Precinct 915 undervote is 57 votes.” If these 57 “missed” votes were allocated to the candidates in proportion to the existing vote totals for that precinct, Pruitt would have received 17 more “missed” votes than Snyder, winning
The superior court rejected Ruedrich’s analysis, pointing to flaws in his underlying assumptions. The court found that Ruedrich relied on the flawed assumption that turnout in 27-910, 27-915, and 27-920 should be the same, when the court found instead that turnout “is not always the same historically in the three precincts.” And it found that Ruedrich’s “two primary assumptions (first, that the three precinсts should have precisely equal [e]lection [d]ay turnout and second, that any difference in turnout was caused by the change of the polling place) are also his conclusions.” The court credited Ruedrich’s testimony that “moving polling places generally lowers turnout.” But it also found that it could not “determine by what increment additional feasible notice under
The superior court’s factual findings about Ruedrich’s testimony are not clearly erroneous. The superior court heard both Ruedrich’s testimony and Townsend’s testimony critiquing Ruedrich’s analysis. “It is the function of the trial court, not of this court, to judge witnesses’ credibility and to weigh conflicting evidence.”71 The court’s rejection of Ruedrich’s conclusions rested on three gaps in Ruedrich’s analysis: he did not consider that turnout in 27-915 has not historically been the same as in neighboring precincts; he did not explore and rule out alternative explanations for the difference in turnout between precincts; and he did not distinguish between the effects of the polling place move itself and the effects of the failure to provide the forms of notice required by
In addition to Ruedrich’s testimony, Pruitt presented one witness, Mary Jo Cunniff, who claimed that she was prevented from voting by lack of notice of the polling place change. The superior court found otherwise. It noted that by Cunniff’s own account, she “lost 15 minutes by going to Wayland Baptist University” before learning of the change and going to Begich, where she chose not to vote because of the line. The court concluded that if voters received notice of the polling place change and chose not to go to Begich, or if they went to Begich but chose not to vote, “this court cannot count those ‘undervotes’ in determining whether any malconduct was sufficient to change the results of the election absent evidence that voters were actually prevented from voting as a result of the Division’s alleged malconduct.”
The superior court’s finding that Cunniff was not prevented from voting is not clearly erroneous. Pruitt argues that “due to the lack of notice and coupled with [Cunniff’s] obligation for the day,” Cunniff “was not able to go back to Begich Middle School and cast her vote.” As the superior court concluded, it is not at all clear that the 15 minutes Cunniff lost by going to Wayland first was the difference between voting and not voting. Pruitt offered no evidence showing that if Cunniff had arrived at Begich at 8:30 a.m. rather than 8:45 a.m., the line would have been
Pruitt quibbles with the superior court’s findings about the timelines Cunniff testified to, arguing that the court “failed to account for the fact” that the times Cunniff gave “were approximate.” He seems to imply that the lack of notice could have cost Cunniff much more than 15 minutes on election day. But the superior court’s factual finding that Cunniff lost 15 minutes is not clearly erroneous. The court interpreted the time ranges given by Cunniff as generously to Pruitt as possible. In the absence of other testimony, the superior court did not clearly err by using the time ranges Cunniff herself provided.
Instead of challenging the superior court’s findings, Pruitt argues that because “[i]t is impossible to say with absolute certainty what the true impact of the Division’s malconduct was . . . the only remedy here is a new election.” But neither statute nor precedent permits us to overturn election results based on speculation. Rather, it is the challenger’s burden to show that any malconduct was sufficient to change the result оf the election — not the Division’s burden to show that malconduct had no effect on the election.73 Adopting the low threshold Pruitt describes would open the door to meritless lawsuits and undermine the integrity of our electoral process. “Because the public has an important interest in the stability and finality of election results . . . we have held that ‘every reasonable presumption will be indulged in favor of the validity of an election.’ ”74 Pruitt’s speculation is not enough to support his election challenge.75
V. CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the superior court’s dismissal of Lance Pruitt’s complaint for failure to state a claim for an election contest, but AFFIRM the superior court’s ruling that Pruitt did not meet his burden to sustain an election contest. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the superior court pronouncing Elizabeth Synder the candidate elected in the 2020 election for House District 27.