“The Supreme Court affirmed the [d]ivision’s determination that it could not advance the fifth place candidate,” Patty Sullivan, a spokeswoman for Alaska’s Department of Law, told Law.com. “As for the [c]ourt’s assertion that Dr. Gross’s name should have been on the ballot, the [d]ivision was surprised by that part of the decision. No one argued that AS 15.10.100 required the [d]ivision to include a candidate on the ballot even after he withdrew. The [c]ourt came up with that reading of the statute on its own, without the benefit of briefing from the parties. The [d]ivision is evaluating the decision and considering whether it warrants a petition for rehearing.”