The voters alleged the same violations and asked for the same relief as in the 2010 voter litigation, but did not include a federal claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. Nash v. Matanuska–Susitna Borough, 239 P.3d 692, 698 (Alaska 2010) (citing City of Nome, 707 P.2d at 875). Please try again. The Superior Court Did Not Err In Determining That The Voters Were Borough Residents For The 2010 And 2011 Elections. Sonny Petersen spent his childhood summers in the Borough at three lodges his father owned. 19. Petersen has spent significant time in the Borough since he was a child, currently lives approximately six months a year in the Borough, and registered to vote in the Borough around 1998. The court denied the voters full reasonable attorney fees against the borough under AS 09.60.010(c), concluding that they did not bring constitutional claims, but awarded them partial attorney fees under Alaska Civil Rule 82. The Borough argues that the superior court erred by failing to apply the Borough's residency standards set out in L & PBC 04.15.020 .26 The Borough contends that AS 29.26.050(b)27 gives municipalities the power to determine voters' residencies for municipal elections, that the Borough executed that power by enacting L & PBC 04.15.010 and .020, and that the superior court therefore erred by failing to apply the L & PBC 04.15.020 standards. The superior court's finding that Oberlatz genuinely intended to reside in the Borough is not clearly erroneous. But AS 09.60.010(c)(2) applies to claims concerning constitutional rights. 22. The voters may be partially immune from paying attorney fees to the individual defendants under AS 09.60.010(c)(2). PASSED AND APPROVED by a duly constituted quorum of the Lake and Peninsula Borough Assembly this 2nd day of April, 2020 IN WITNESS THERETO: ATTEST Glen R. Alsworth, Sr., Mayor Kate Conley, Borough Clerk . The Borough Clerk reviews returned ballots for compliance with election requirements. 2. The court cannot simply characterize all the claims as primarily constitutional or primarily non-constitutional. “As a general rule, we approach issues independently of the superior court when that court acts as an intermediate court of appeal.”9 But when the superior court conducts a trial de novo under Alaska Appellate Rule 609, we review only the superior court's findings and conclusions, not those of the agency.10 We review the superior court's factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard.11 “We will find clear error only if, after a thorough review of the record, we come to a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”12 “Legal questions are reviewed de novo, and we will adopt the rule of law that is most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy.”13, We review the superior court's decision to grant or deny injunctive relief for abuse of discretion.14 “[W]e review de novo whether the trial court applied the law correctly in awarding attorney's fees.”15.