Alaska Election Law · #akleg · #RNC · #jan6th · First & Fourteenth
The Alaska Division of Elections Is Being Defended by the RNC's Own Litigation Firm
Both partners of First & Fourteenth PLLC — the conservative litigation boutique that defeated the January 6th committee's subpoena for the RNC — are now in Alaska Superior Court defending a state agency that removed a candidate at the NRSC's request.
When the Alaska Division of Elections filed Pro Hac Vice motions on June 22, 2026, admitting two out-of-state attorneys to defend against Sullivan v. Division of Elections, the names meant everything. C. Murray and M. Francisco are not generic outside counsel. They are Christopher O. Murray and Michael Francisco — both partners at First & Fourteenth PLLC, a self-described conservative litigation boutique whose tagline is "Tradition wins."
Both partners. Not one attorney with election law expertise. Both partners of the same firm — the firm that represents the Republican National Committee in election litigation — deployed simultaneously to defend a Republican state election director's decision to remove a constitutionally qualified candidate made at the request of the Republican National Senatorial Committee.
A state agency tasked with neutral election administration is now being defended by the RNC's own law firm.
Who They Are
The Tymkovich Connection
The Shared Judicial Clerkship That Built This Firm
Both Murray and Francisco clerked for Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. They came up through the same judicial chambers, built their careers in parallel, and co-founded First & Fourteenth together. This is not two attorneys who happen to share a firm — it is a tightly coordinated conservative legal operation built from the same clerkship, deploying the same judicial philosophy, in service of the same political ecosystem. Judge Tymkovich was appointed by President George W. Bush and is known for his conservative jurisprudence on constitutional and religious liberty questions — exactly the legal framework First & Fourteenth now applies to election law.
What First & Fourteenth Actually Is
First & Fourteenth describes itself as a values-driven litigation boutique that handles "fearless, creative, and principled advocacy." Their practice spans religious liberty, constitutional law, and election litigation. Their tagline — "Tradition wins" — is not marketing language. It is a statement of judicial philosophy that maps directly onto the legal arguments Murray and Francisco will make in Alaska Superior Court.
Michael has represented candidates, voters, political parties, and advocacy groups in cases involving ballot access, campaign finance, election administration, and the unfortunate trend of criminalization of political activity. His strategic counsel has shaped some of the most consequential First Amendment and election law battles in recent years.
— First & Fourteenth PLLC, biography of Michael Francisco
Francisco's biography specifically references "the unfortunate trend of criminalization of political activity" — language that signals a legal philosophy hostile to using state power against political actors. Yet Francisco is now in Alaska defending exactly that: a state election official who used state power to remove a political candidate at a national party committee's request.
The ideological tension in that position is significant. First & Fourteenth built its reputation defending political actors from government overreach. In Alaska, they are defending government overreach on behalf of political actors.
Every Actor — One Party
There is not a single non-Republican actor on either side of the decision to remove Daniel J. Sullivan from the ballot. The complaint came from Republican Party entities. The removal was executed by Republican state officials. The defense is being mounted by the Republican Party's own litigation firm.
The Alaska Division of Elections is a constitutionally neutral state agency charged with administering elections for all Alaskans. What is now defending that agency's decision in Alaska Superior Court is indistinguishable from the Republican Party's national legal apparatus.
The Ideological Contradiction
Francisco built his career opposing "the criminalization of political activity" and defending candidates from government overreach. He is now defending a government official who removed a candidate from a ballot at a political party's request — with no statutory authority to do so, according to the Alaska Legislature's own lawyers.
Murray defeated a congressional subpoena for the RNC by arguing the subpoena exceeded legislative authority and violated First Amendment rights. The Alaska Legislature's subpoena to Beecher raises identical questions. He is now on the other side — defending against scrutiny of the same party he protected from congressional scrutiny in 2022.
First & Fourteenth's conservative judicial philosophy is built on constitutional text and original meaning. The constitutional text here — U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton — is unambiguous: states cannot add qualifications for Congressional office. The Alaska Legislative Counsel applied exactly this textual analysis to conclude the removal was likely unconstitutional. First & Fourteenth must now argue against the plain constitutional text their own judicial philosophy demands they follow.
The Alaska Attorney General's office — which routinely defends state agencies — is not here. The Division bypassed its own state's lawyers for a private conservative litigation boutique with direct ties to the RNC. That choice either signals the AG declined to defend an unconstitutional position, or that the RNC's legal apparatus was involved in the defense strategy from the beginning.
The Question July 20 Must Answer
The legislative subpoena demands all communications between the Division of Elections, the NRSC, the Alaska Republican Party, and the incumbent senator's campaign. Those documents are due July 20. The most important question those documents could answer is not when the NRSC wrote its complaint letter. It is when First & Fourteenth was retained.
If Murray and Francisco were retained before the June 15 removal decision — if the RNC's litigation firm was advising the Division while it was deciding whether to remove Sullivan from the ballot — that transforms the Division's decision from an independent administrative determination into a coordinated partisan legal strategy executed through a nominally neutral state agency.
If they were retained after the removal — engaged specifically to defend the decision once litigation became inevitable — the coordination question is narrower but the partisan alignment is no less complete.
Either way, a state election agency is being defended by the Republican Party's own law firm in a case that began with the Republican Party's own national committee demanding a candidate's removal. The Division of Elections is not a neutral administrator in this case. It is a partisan actor with partisan counsel defending a partisan decision.
The Partisan Record — Complete
The NRSC demanded the removal. The Alaska Republican Party filed the complaint. Republican state officials executed it. The Alaska Legislature's own lawyers said it was likely unconstitutional. A legislative subpoena was negotiated into mootness past the ballot printing deadline. The case went to Superior Court. The Division bypassed the Alaska AG and retained both partners of First & Fourteenth — the RNC's conservative litigation boutique, tagline "Tradition wins" — to defend a constitutionally suspect removal of a qualified candidate from a ballot. Murray clerked for Tymkovich. Francisco clerked for Tymkovich and then Gorsuch and has argued 19 Supreme Court cases. Together they defeated the January 6th committee's subpoena for the RNC. They are now in Alaska. The Division of Elections is not defending this case. The Republican Party is.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment