Staff Reports
The judge’s ruling this week in Anchorage is simple and sensible: don’t demand a complex, searchable list of rejected absentee ballots in the middle of counting and expect election workers to instantly produce it. In a close Alaska U.S. Senate race where every ballot matters, the Peltola campaign asked for names and rejection codes for absentee ballots. Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews said the state “simply lacks the capacity to generate the report” and that the request “is not reasonable” while counting is still underway.
Judge blocks mid‑count access to rejected absentee ballot log
The Peltola campaign argued they needed the absentee rejection list so they could check whether eligible voters were being wrongly left out of the count. That’s a legitimate concern in principle. But the court didn’t buy the urgency as presented. Judge Matthews denied the emergency order without a trial, pointing to the Alaska Division of Elections’ technical and staffing limits and the practical realities of running a statewide tally. The campaign can ask the judge to reconsider or appeal — but for now, no instant, mid‑count dump of sensitive voter records.
Why timing and capacity matter
This isn’t just legal theater. Alaska’s count moves slowly — remote precincts, absentee ballots, and special review boards all add time. Producing a full report from the voter database is not a two‑minute task; it requires staff, secure handling, and time that the Division says it doesn’t have during peak processing. Forcing that production mid‑count could slow certification or introduce new errors. If the campaign wanted the worksheet that badly, common sense suggests asking earlier or working with officials under normal procedures rather than seeking a court shortcut while ballots are still being processed.
Election integrity or election theater?
Let’s be blunt: in tight races both sides will use every tool they can. Campaigns should push for transparency — that’s healthy for elections — but there’s a difference between transparency and a last‑minute grab for voter lists that courts and election offices aren’t ready to produce. The Peltola campaign’s stated goal — to ensure its voters weren’t improperly disenfranchised — is a fine headline. But the court was right to weigh operational reality and voter privacy against campaign convenience. If the system is truly broken, demand fixes for future elections, not emergency remedies meant to shift the playing field now.
What comes next
The race remains uncalled and narrow, with U.S. Senate candidate Mary Peltola holding a slight lead over Senator Dan Sullivan as officials finish counting. The campaign can push for reconsideration or lodge an appeal, and observers should watch whether the Division of Elections can produce any redacted or partial records after the count. For now, Judge Matthews’ ruling upholds a basic principle: don’t hamstring election officials with impossible demands during the busiest hour. Conservatives who care about both fair play and orderly government should like that — messy as elections are, chaos helps no one.
