Alaska Stat. » Chapter 15.20
Alaska Statutes

Alaska Stat. § 15.20.540 (2026)

Grounds for election contest

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AK-LEGakleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 15.20.540. Grounds for election contest.
A defeated candidate or 10 qualified voters may contest the nomination or election of any person or the approval or rejection of any question or proposition upon one or more of the following grounds:
     (1) malconduct, fraud, or corruption on the part of an election official sufficient to change the result of the election;

     (2) when the person certified as elected or nominated is not qualified as required by law;

     (3) any corrupt practice as defined by law sufficient to change the results of the election.




Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1972–2023 · leading case: Dansereau v. Ulmer, 903 P.2d 555 (Alaska 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dansereau v. Ulmer, 903 P.2d 555 (Alaska 1995). · cites it 41× “Under AS 15.20.540, Contestants have the "dual burden" of showing that there was both a significant deviation from statutory direction, and that the deviation was of a magnitude sufficient to change the result of the election.”
Grimm v. Wagoner, 77 P.3d 423 (Alaska 2003). · cites it 6× “20, the proper question before the court was whether Wagoner's alleged failures to disclose were sufficient to change the result of the election-the standard for contesting an election under AS 15.20.540. The court rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that AS 39.”
Nageak v. Mallott, 426 P.3d 930 (Alaska 2018). · cites it 24× “He and four others contested the election in the superior court pursuant to AS 15.20.540. He also filed a direct appeal of the recount in this court pursuant to AS 15.”
Boucher v. Bomhoff, 495 P.2d 77 (Alaska 1972). · cites it 14× “within the meaning of AS 15.20.540." [1] In the *79 second count of this complaint, appellees asserted that the election was null and void in that appellant failed to comply with the requirements of Alaska's constitutional provision specifying the language to be employed in…”
Lance Pruitt v. State of Alaska, Off. of Lt. Governor Kevin Meyer, Div. of Elections, Dir. Gail Fenumiai, & Elizabeth A. Hodges Snyder, 498 P.3d 591 (Alaska 2021). · cites it 8× “2 The plaintiffs contested the election under AS 15.20.540, alleging that the “integrity of the election [was] in question” because the Division had failed to develop a procedure to review ballot signatures and to give required notice after moving a polling place in House…”
Miller v. Treadwell, 245 P.3d 867 (Alaska 2010). · cites it 5× “Carey upheld all of the Division's disputed actions, treating some claims as pure declaratory judgment requests and treating other claims as an election contest under AS 15.20.540. It may be that certain legal issues could properly be brought to us pre-election or during an…”
Hammond v. Hickel, 588 P.2d 256 (Alaska 1978). · cites it 4× “This case comes to this court on appeal from the decision of the superior court on cross-motions for summary judgment in an election contest brought pursuant to the provisions of AS 15.20.540. The superior court granted summary judgment to appel-lees and found that there was…”
Braun v. Borough, 193 P.3d 719 (Alaska 2008). · cites it 3× “Under AS 15.20.540, an election may be contested on the following grounds: "(1) malconduct, fraud, or corruption on the part of an election official sufficient to change the result of the election; (2) when the person certified as elected or nominated is not qualified as…”
Thomas v. Croft, 614 P.2d 795 (Alaska 1980). · cites it 5× “The plaintiffs, Hickel and Merdes, had contested the election pursuant to AS 15.20.540, [1] *797 alleging that there had been malconduct by election officials sufficient to change the result of the election.”
Eberhart v. Alaska Pub. Offices Comm'n, 426 P.3d 890 (Alaska 2018). · cites it 2× “" Even AS 15.20.540, which permits an election contest, does not require challengers to prove that an election official's "malconduct, fraud or corruption" actually influenced the election; it requires them only to prove that the bad acts were "sufficient to change the result of…”
Cissna v. Stout, 931 P.2d 363 (Alaska 1996). · cites it 3× “510, and the election contest provision, AS 15.20.540. 9 This court has direct appellate jurisdiction to review recount decisions specified in AS 15.”
Willis v. Thomas, 600 P.2d 1079 (Alaska 1979). · cites it 3× “3 AS 15.20.540 provides for a contest of the election as a whole, rather than just the recount.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Alaska Stat. § 15.20.540(1) — 4 cases
Nageak v. Mallott, 426 P.3d 930 (Alaska 2018). “He and four others contested the election in the superior court pursuant to AS 15.20.540. He also filed a direct appeal of the recount in this court pursuant to AS 15.”
Dansereau v. Ulmer, 903 P.2d 555 (Alaska 1995). “Under AS 15.20.540, Contestants have the "dual burden" of showing that there was both a significant deviation from statutory direction, and that the deviation was of a magnitude sufficient to change the result of the election.”
Boucher v. Bomhoff, 495 P.2d 77 (Alaska 1972). “within the meaning of AS 15.20.540." [1] In the *79 second count of this complaint, appellees asserted that the election was null and void in that appellant failed to comply with the requirements of Alaska's constitutional provision specifying the language to be employed in…”
Lance Pruitt v. State of Alaska, Off. of Lt. Governor Kevin Meyer, Div. of Elections, Dir. Gail Fenumiai, & Elizabeth A. Hodges Snyder, 498 P.3d 591 (Alaska 2021). “2 The plaintiffs contested the election under AS 15.20.540, alleging that the “integrity of the election [was] in question” because the Division had failed to develop a procedure to review ballot signatures and to give required notice after moving a polling place in House…”
— Alaska Stat. § 15.20.540(3) — 2 cases
Dansereau v. Ulmer, 903 P.2d 555 (Alaska 1995). “Under AS 15.20.540, Contestants have the "dual burden" of showing that there was both a significant deviation from statutory direction, and that the deviation was of a magnitude sufficient to change the result of the election.”
Nageak v. Mallott, 426 P.3d 930 (Alaska 2018). “He and four others contested the election in the superior court pursuant to AS 15.20.540. He also filed a direct appeal of the recount in this court pursuant to AS 15.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.