An Anchorage Superior Court judge has ruled that the Alaska Division of Elections is not required to provide daily working lists of rejected absentee ballots or to create a new database report for U.S. Senate candidate Mary Peltola’s campaign while the 2026 general election count remains in progress.
Background
Superior Court Judge Thomas A. Matthews granted summary judgment on November 11 to Lieutenant Governor Nancy Dahlstrom, Elections Director Carol Beecher, and the Division of Elections in a public‑records lawsuit filed by Alaskans for Mary, the group supporting Peltola’s Senate bid.
The campaign initially requested, on October 27—the day absentee review boards began their work—for records showing the names of voters whose absentee ballots were rejected and the specific codes explaining the rejections. After a second request on November 4 went unanswered, the campaign filed suit on November 6, three days after the November 3 general election.
Court hearing
During a November 10 hearing, the campaign narrowed its request, asking the court to order the immediate release of the “public version of the details report,” a daily printout given to credentialed election observers, or equivalent data pulled from the state’s Voter Registration and Election Management System (VREMS). Campaign attorneys emphasized they did not intend to use the records for “phone banking” voters whose ballots were flagged.
State’s position
State officials argued they already release the Absentee Register twice a week, which lists absentee voters without the accept or reject codes. They noted that ballot decisions made during review board meetings are preliminary until the State Review Board completes its final count ahead of the November 18 certification deadline. Officials also pointed out that the observer reports contain protected voter information, require signed confidentiality agreements, and are shredded each day after the data is entered into VREMS.
Judge’s ruling
Judge Matthews sided with the state, finding that the observer details reports do not qualify as “public records” under the Alaska Public Records Act because they are temporary working checklists that become outdated within hours. Because the reports are routinely discarded and hold no ongoing evidentiary value, they are not “worthy of preservation.”
The judge also rejected the campaign’s request to have the state extract names and rejection codes directly from VREMS. While acknowledging that VREMS itself is a public record, Matthews ruled that forcing election staff to pull and redact the data would require creating a custom “electronic service or product,” which agencies may decline when it interferes with primary responsibilities.
“The Division is actively in the middle of counting ballots. It has active deadlines it must meet,” Matthews wrote, noting staff are working long hours to administer the election. “The timing of the Campaign’s request could simply not be worse.”
Matthews added that VREMS is “antiquated software” that cannot easily separate public names and rejection codes from confidential residential addresses without custom programming from an outside vendor. Because the division was not legally required to produce the temporary sheets or build a new database report during peak ballot counting, the judge ruled that the campaign’s motion failed.
Original reporting: Tampa Free Press — read the source article.
