“Corrected Before Counted” — Alaska Supreme Court Validates Post-Filing Corrections to Initiative Petition Certifications

1. Introduction

In Medicine Crow v. Beecher, No. 7775 (Alaska June 27 2025), the Supreme Court of Alaska confronted a critical procedural question in the State’s initiative process: May sponsors cure defective circulator certifications after the statutory filing deadlines, so long as the corrections are completed within the Division of Elections’ 60-day review period?

The case arose after three Alaska residents—La Quen Náay Elizabeth Medicine Crow, Amber Lee, and Kevin McGee—challenged the Division of Elections’ decision to place Initiative 22AKHE (repealing open primaries and ranked-choice voting) on the November 2024 ballot. The challengers contended that 62 petition booklets were fatally flawed because they were notarised by an individual whose commission had lapsed. The Division, however, had permitted the sponsors (Dr. Arthur Mathias, Phillip Izon, and Jamie R. Donley) to retrieve, correct, and re-submit those booklets during the ongoing 60-day review.

The Superior Court granted summary judgment for the Division and sponsors on the statutory-interpretation issue, later affirmed by the Supreme Court in an expedited appeal. The decision establishes a significant precedent clarifying the interaction between Alaska Statutes § 15.45.130 (permitting corrections “before the subscriptions are counted”) and the initiative filing deadlines in §§ 15.45.140 and 15.45.190.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Holding: Alaska Statute § 15.45.130 authorises sponsors to correct defective circulator affidavits after the one-year signature-gathering deadline and after the legislative session has convened, provided the corrections occur before the Division completes its 60-day sufficiency review. Replacement certifications—not merely technical edits—are permissible.
Regulatory Consistency: Allowing post-filing corrections does not violate 6 AAC 25.240’s “single instrument” requirement nor the “patent defect” rule, because those provisions address (i) the manner of initial filing and (ii) booklets facially lacking sufficient signatures, not subsequently-discovered certification errors.
Result: Even after the Superior Court excluded some signatures for unrelated misconduct, enough valid signatures remained for Initiative 22AKHE to stay on the November 2024 ballot.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Yute Air Alaska, Inc. v. McAlpine, 698 P.2d 1173 (Alaska 1985) — Distinguished the act of filing an initiative from the later verification of signatures, supporting the view that legislative-session timing is keyed to the filing date, not completion of the Division’s review. The Court leaned on this reasoning to separate § 15.45.150’s 60-day review from §§ 15.45.140/190 filing deadlines.
North West Cruiseship Ass’n v. State, 145 P.3d 573 (Alaska 2006) — Described certification affidavits as serving to ensure circulators swear to truthfulness. The case showed that minor affidavit defects should not disenfranchise voters. The Court extrapolated that substantive replacement affidavits likewise further the certification’s purpose.
State v. Jeffery, 170 P.3d 226 (Alaska 2007); Falke v. State, 717 P.2d 369 (Alaska 1986) — Reaffirmed strict enforcement of election filing deadlines. The Court distinguished those precedents by emphasising that § 15.45.130 creates a separate, statutorily-authorised “correction window.”
Interpretive cases on statutory construction — Guerin (2023), Vazquez (2024), Suzuki (2002) — Provided canons (e.g., every word has effect; “or” is disjunctive; avoid surplusage) that underpinned the textual analysis of “or corrected.”

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Textual Analysis of § 15.45.130
- Key clause: “…may not count subscriptions on petitions not properly certified at the time of filing or corrected before the subscriptions are counted.”
- By using the disjunctive “or,” the legislature created an alternative: either certificates are proper upon filing or they may be corrected prior to completion of counting.
- Reading “corrected” narrowly (technical fixes only) or tying it to the start—not end—of counting would render the correction clause meaningless, violating surplusage principles.
Legislative History
- The “or corrected” language was added by H.B. 94 (2005), following earlier draft H.B. 523 (2004). Committee discussions (Rep. Gruenberg, Director Glaiser) show intent “to make the process easier” and avoid disenfranchising voters when circulators make mistakes.
- Repeal of former § 15.45.170 (supplementary petitions) targeted signature-gathering extensions, not certification corrections; the Court rejected challengers’ argument that repeal implied a bar on post-filing affidavit replacement.
Regulatory Harmony
- 6 AAC 25.240(c) (“single instrument”): Prevents staggered initial filings by circulators; it does not bar the Division from temporarily returning individual booklets for correction once a single instrument has been lodged.
- 6 AAC 25.240(f) (“patent defect”): Applies only when inadequate signatures are apparent on the face at time of submission. Notary-commission expiry was latent; therefore, returning the booklets for cure was permissible.
- The Court deferred to the Division’s plausible interpretation of its own regulations under Davis Wright Tremaine LLP (2014).

3.3 Potential Impact

Initiative Process Predictability: Establishes a clear, court-approved “corrections window” bounded by the 60-day review, giving sponsors, challengers and the Division precise temporal guidance.
Voter Enfranchisement vs. Procedural Purity: Tilts the balance toward counting voter signatures when circulator missteps can be remedied without extending signature-collection time.
Administrative Practice: Validates longstanding Division policies (training materials already allowed returns for corrections) and insulates those practices from future facial challenges.
Litigation Strategy: Future objectors must now focus on identifying fraudulent certifications or other substantive infirmities rather than timing-based arguments related to affidavit defects.
Legislative Cues: If the legislature wishes to tighten or loosen the correction period, it now has judicial clarity on the baseline rule from which to legislate.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Initiative Petition: A bound set of “petition booklets” containing voter signatures collected to propose a law directly to voters.
Circulator Certification: An affidavit, usually notarised, in which the person who gathered signatures swears that the signatures are genuine and other statutory conditions are met.
One-Year Signature Window (§ 15.45.140): Sponsors have exactly 12 months after receiving blank booklets to gather signatures.
60-Day Review (§ 15.45.150): Once petitions are filed, the Division must verify signatures and issue its sufficiency decision within 60 days. Corrections must occur inside this window.
Patent Defect (6 AAC 25.240(f)): A deficiency obvious on the petition’s face at filing—e.g., too few signatures—even before detailed scrutiny.
“Single Instrument” Filing: All booklets must be turned in together, preventing staggered or phased submissions; it does not bar discrete corrections post-filing.

5. Conclusion

The Alaska Supreme Court’s decision in Medicine Crow v. Beecher cements the principle that initiative sponsors may cure defective circulator certifications any time up to the completion of the Division of Elections’ 60-day sufficiency review. The Court grounded its holding in statutory text, legislative purpose, and deference to reasonable agency regulation, rejecting arguments that such corrections undermine the integrity of filing deadlines. By doing so, it preserves the electorate’s ability to have their signatures counted where circulator missteps were honest and remediable, while maintaining firm barriers against late signature gathering. Going forward, Alaska’s initiative terrain is clearer: the doors close on new signatures at filing, but not on fixing the paperwork that authenticates those signatures—provided the fix happens “before the subscriptions are counted.”