Today the superior court will hear oral arguments in Midtown Citizens Coalition v. Municipality of Anchorage. "MCC" is an unofficial group that opposes the recall of Assembly member Felix Rivera. The question is whether the Muni properly certified the recall petition. #aklaw

Before posting the MCC v. MOA briefs, it's worth noting that the legal arguments made by Rivera's supporters parallel those made by Dunleavy in Recall Dunleavy v. State. Both Rivera and Dunleavy argued that their recall petitions should have been denied by election officials.
So let's play a game called "Who Argued It." Guess which politician, Rivera or Dunleavy, made the following arguments in court:

1. "The grounds for recall stated in the petition are insufficient as a matter of law, and therefore the petition should have been rejected."
2. "Even under Alaska’s liberal recall standards, courts have not hesitated to find petitions legally insufficient when those petitions did not contain sufficient factual allegations of unlawful activity to state sufficient grounds for recall.”
3. "The allegations must be sufficiently particular to allow the official a meaningful opportunity to respond . . . . [and] ensure that voters have the information they need to vote."
4. "Since the recall of an elected official can only be for cause, there must be a de minimus exception for minor infractions such as administrative or procedural errors."
5. "For a duly-elected official in a for-cause recall jurisdiction, removal from office is an extraordinary proceeding and should not be treated lightly . . . allegations [must] clearly identify the acts and explain why they are worthy of recall.”
6. "[Alaska's framers] did not want officials to be recalled based on disagreement with their legitimate policy decisions.”
7. "Officials in jurisdictions with for-cause recall, like Alaska, are entitled to more process."
BONUS:

8. "[Recalls] must allege more than mere conclusory statements or arguments; otherwise our recall process drifts to the end of the spectrum where simple disagreement with an office holder's position on questions of policy becomes sufficient grounds in and of themselves."

More from Law

How to avoid (successful) accusations of defamation on Twitter. A few thoughts from someone who is NOT a libel lawyer, but does say very critical things about named individuals. 1/

1. Facts are different from opinions. But stating an opinion can imply a fact.
https://t.co/1PkiI4olib


2. When I tweet I aim to be sure A. I show the *facts* I am basing my *opinion* on. B. I have good reason to believe the *facts* are true. C. My opinion is reasonable based on the facts.

Here I am calling Arron Banks a racist (opinion). Pointing out this is because he called for mosques to be demolished (fact). 4/


I can prove this fact - and others - about what Banks has said. And I can justify why in my opinion that shows he’s a racist. 5/

You May Also Like

I think a plausible explanation is that whatever Corbyn says or does, his critics will denounce - no matter how much hypocrisy it necessitates.


Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel

He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:

He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:

He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party