Alaska Judge Denies Request for Rejected Absentee Voter List

An Alaska judge recently deemed a request by Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Mary Peltola’s campaign for a list of rejected absentee voters as “not reasonable” given current election counting demands. Ballots are still being processed in Alaska’s ranked-choice election, where Peltola and Republican Senator Dan Sullivan are the primary candidates.

Alaska’s election rules allow acceptance of ballots from overseas until 15 days post-election, making November 18 the deadline. The Division of Elections plans to conduct ranked vote tabulations if no candidate garners more than 50% of first-choice votes by that date.

Peltola’s campaign attorneys filed a lawsuit against state election officials seeking the list and the reasons for the ballot rejections. They argued the aim was to ensure all legitimate votes were counted. However, state attorneys countered, stating the request would breach voter privacy and that generating such a list would require resources beyond the agency’s main duties.

“In theory,” Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews wrote, records could be redacted to allow release. However, he decided the division wasn’t obligated to disclose the records because they “cannot reasonably be produced…nor redacted of confidential information.”

He highlighted the urgency in the Division’s tasks, emphasizing that staff is already working extensive hours to fulfill their primary duty of administering elections.

The holiday timing hampered immediate responses from Peltola’s campaign attorneys. The state Department of Law, which represented the Division of Elections, expressed satisfaction with Matthews’ ruling.

During a preceding argument, Abha Khanna, representing Peltola’s campaign, assured that the campaign didn’t intend to disrupt the count. She noted the process was progressing smoothly, though the campaign argued that the requested information should be public, akin to what campaign observers can access during absentee reviews.

State attorneys maintained that such reports, due to containing confidential information, aren’t public records. Michaela Thompson, overseeing the absentee ballot review boards, clarified that reports given to observers lack some confidential data but include home addresses, which many voters prefer to keep private. While observers sign confidentiality agreements, the division’s outdated system could not omit these confidential details without vendor intervention to tailor a report.