Democrat Mary Peltola loses court bid for rejected ballot list as Alaska count continues

Democrat Mary Peltola loses court bid for rejected ballot list as Alaska count continues The contest is the only Senate race in the country that remains too early to call - Bookmark - CommentsGo to comments Become an Independent member to bookmark this article Already a member? Log in An Alaska judge has ruled against Mary Peltola's campaign in its bid for a list of voters whose absentee ballots were rejected, as counting continues in the state's unresolved US Senate race. Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews ruled that Alaska's Division of Elections is "currently busy processing ballots from the 2026 general election" and "simply lacks the capacity to generate the report from" the voter registration database at the behest of Peltola's campaign. "Even if the request were otherwise considered reasonable outside the peak election time of year, it is simply not reasonable nor required right now," the ruling said. With 86% of votes counted as of late Wednesday, Peltola – the Democratic candidate – holds a narrow lead over Republican incumbent Senator Dan S. Sullivan, according to media tallies. The margin between the two candidates stood at 1.6%. It is the only Senate race in the country that remained too early to call. Ballots are still being tallied in the ranked-vote election, with Peltola and two-term Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan the main contenders. If no candidate secures more than 50% of the vote, the race will head to a ranked-choice tabulation. Overseas voters in Alaska can return ballots up to 15 days after general elections, making Nov. 18 the final day to receive them. Nov. 18 is also the Division of Elections' target date for conducting ranked-choice tabulations should no candidate win more than 50% of the first-choice votes. Lawyers for Peltola's campaign sued state elections officials last Friday, asking for a list of voters whose absentee ballots have been rejected and the reasons for the rejections. They said they wanted to ensure all qualified voters have their ballots counted. On Wednesday, Matthews ruled that the request is “not reasonable,” particularly given the time crunch election officials face as they continue counting ballots from last week's election. The state's lawyers opposed the request. State attorneys said the information sought would violate voter privacy. They also said producing such a list from a voter database would amount to an “electronic service or product” that under state law may not take priority over an agency's main responsibilities. Matthews, in a written ruling, said that “in theory” records from the voter database could be redacted and produced in a way that would allow their release. But he said the division is not required to disclose the records requested by the campaign because they “cannot reasonably be produced at this juncture, nor redacted of confidential information.” He wrote that the division has deadlines to meet and says its staff is working long hours to accomplish the agency's “fundamental responsibility” of administering elections. “The timing of the Campaign’s request could simply not be worse,” Matthews wrote. The state Department of Law, which represented the Division of Elections, said in a statement that it was pleased with the decision. An email seeking comment from one of the law firms representing Peltola's campaign was not returned immediately on Wednesday, a holiday. Abha Khanna, an attorney for Peltola's campaign, said during Tuesday arguments before Matthews that the campaign wasn't seeking to disrupt the ballot-counting process. She said the absentee ballot review process was going “incredibly smoothly.” Khanna argued the information sought is public record and matches what campaign observers can access at locations where absentee review boards are meeting. The campaign wanted access to that information in a more centralized way, she said. State attorneys have argued that reports generated by the division with lists of ballots to be reviewed during the absentee ballot review process are not public records because they contain confidential information and are “ephemeral working documents that are not meant for preservation.” Michaela Thompson, who oversees the division's absentee ballot review boards, said in an affidavit that the version of the report received by observers of the review process – including those affiliated with the campaigns – does not include as much confidential information but does include home addresses that many voters seek to keep private. Those observers sign confidentiality agreements and cannot keep, copy or record information in the report, she said. Join our commenting forum Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies Comments