Judge Thomas Matthews rejects Peltola campaign bid for rejected ballot list

Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews ruled against a request from the campaign of Democratic Senate candidate Mary Peltola to access a detailed list of rejected mail-in ballots. In a written decision issued this week, Matthews determined that the request was not reasonable given the current stage of the election count. The ruling leaves the state election officials with the primary task of counting ballots without the added burden of compiling a specific data set for the Peltola team.

The dispute centers on the ongoing count for the Alaska Senate seat, the last undecided race in the United States. Peltola and incumbent Republican Senator Dan Sullivan remain the top contenders in the preferential voting process. The state continues to accept ballots from voters abroad until November 18. If no candidate secures more than 50 percent of first-preference votes, the state election division will proceed with a ranked-choice count.

On Friday, attorneys for Peltola filed a demand for a list of voters whose mail ballots were rejected, along with the specific reasons for those rejections. The campaign argued that the state must ensure every qualified voter’s ballot is counted. They sought this information to verify that their observers were reviewing all necessary cases during the ongoing audit process.

State attorneys countered that generating the requested list would violate voter privacy. They argued that creating a custom report from the voter database constitutes an electronic service or product. Under state law, such tasks cannot take priority over the agency’s core duties. The state maintained that the information sought is not a standard public record because it is derived from internal working documents.

Judge Matthews acknowledged that the voter database records could theoretically be edited to allow disclosure. However, he concluded that the election division is not required to release the specific records requested at this time. He stated that it is not reasonably possible to present the data now or to remove confidential information. The judge noted that the division has strict deadlines and staff are working long hours to manage the elections.

In his decision, Matthews wrote that the timing of the campaign’s request could not have been worse. He emphasized that the agency’s fundamental responsibility is the administration of the elections. The judge’s ruling effectively blocks the campaign from forcing the state to prioritize a custom data report over the active ballot counting process.

Abha Khanna, an attorney for the Peltola campaign, told Judge Matthews on Tuesday that the team did not intend to interrupt the vote count. She stated that the mail ballot review process was proceeding smoothly. Khanna argued that the requested information is in the public domain and matches what campaign observers already see at review boards. The campaign wanted more centralized access to that data.

Michaela Thompson, who oversees the mail ballot review boards, submitted an affidavit explaining the technical constraints. She stated that the version of the report given to observers includes private home addresses that many voters wish to keep confidential. Observers sign confidentiality agreements and are prohibited from keeping, copying, or photographing the report. The state’s database is described as old and inflexible, meaning the agency would need to work with a vendor to create a customized report that excludes confidential addresses.

Messages sent on Wednesday to one of the law firms representing Peltola and the state Department of Justice did not yield an immediate response. The state’s position is that reports generated during the review process are ephemeral working documents not intended for preservation. The Peltola campaign’s request for a static list of rejections now faces a legal barrier while the state focuses on finishing the count.