JUNEAU, Alaska – In a recent ruling, a judge in Alaska determined that Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Mary Peltola’s request for a list of absentee voters whose ballots were rejected is “not reasonable.” This decision comes amidst a tight timeline as state election officials continue to count ballots from the recent election.
The current ranked voting election, featuring Peltola and two-term Republican Senator Dan Sullivan as the primary candidates, has drawn significant attention. Notably, Alaska is the only Senate race that remains too early to call, with ballots still being tallied. The state allows ballots from overseas voters to be accepted up to 15 days after the general elections, making November 18 the final day for their arrival. This date also aligns with the Division of Elections’ target for completing ranked vote tabulations if no candidate surpasses the 50% threshold in first-choice votes.
Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews ruled on this matter shortly after hearing arguments from both sides. Peltola’s campaign had filed a lawsuit against state elections officials, seeking access to the list of rejected absentee ballots and the reasons for their rejection. The campaign’s attorneys argued that this information was essential to ensure that all eligible voters have their ballots counted.
However, state attorneys contended that disclosing such information would infringe on voter privacy rights. Abha Khanna, an attorney representing Peltola’s campaign, clarified that the campaign did not aim to disrupt the ballot counting process and noted that there had been no signs of issues thus far. “As far as we can tell, the absentee ballot review process is going incredibly smoothly and we plan to keep it that way,” she stated.
Khanna emphasized that the requested information is a matter of public record, consistent with what campaign observers can access during absentee ballot review board meetings. The campaign sought a more centralized approach to this information, which is critical in maintaining transparency in the electoral process.
Absentee review boards convene at the Division of Elections’ regional offices, allowing campaigns and political parties to have observers present during the process. According to state law, there are provisions for challenging absentee ballots if there is a credible suspicion regarding a voter’s eligibility. In the court filing, state attorneys argued that daily reports generated by the Division of Elections—containing lists of absentee ballots for review—are not public records due to their confidential nature, labeling them as “ephemeral working documents” not meant for public distribution.
Michaela Thompson, who oversees the absentee ballot review boards, provided an affidavit indicating that the reports available to observers include less confidential information but still contain home addresses that many voters wish to keep private. Observers are required to sign confidentiality agreements and are prohibited from keeping, copying, or recording any information from the reports.
