State says the data implicates voters' privacy because 'many people would not want the world to know' of an absentee mistake
State of AlaskaAlaska Department of Law, representing the Division of Elections, in a motion filed in Anchorage Superior Court
In a motion filed November 9, the state argues that the Public Records Act does not require the division to keep or produce the provisional data, which does not exist in the requested form, and that releasing it would implicate absentee voters' constitutional right to privacy.
Responding to
No Alaska statute protects from public disclosure the absentee register's accept or reject codes or the names of voters whose absentee ballots were rejected.
“And the information implicates voters' constitutional right to privacy because many people would not want the world to know that they may have made a mistake in absentee voting.”
Reporting
Other statements by State of Alaska in this case
- Alaska's Department of Law says state law does not require the division to release the preliminary ballot dataEarlier: Defended or excused
Where this statement fits
Peltola's campaign sues Alaska for rejected absentee ballot records; the state says the data is confidential, and Sullivan's campaign moves to intervene
On November 6, 2026, Alaskans for Mary, the campaign committee of Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Mary Peltola, sued Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom, Division of Elections director Carol Beecher and the division in Anchorage Superior Court under the Alaska Public Records Act. It seeks the absentee register showing the accept or reject code for each returned absentee ballot, or other records showing whose ballots were rejected and why, and it asked for a temporary restraining order. The Alaska Department of Law says state law does not require the division to release the preliminary information, which it has long treated as confidential, and that releasing it could slow the count. On November 9 the state argued that the records implicate voters' constitutional right to privacy, and the campaign of Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan moved to intervene, saying the request would bypass the absentee review process the law sets for all candidates. Judge Thomas Matthews scheduled oral argument for November 10.
Source and context
Reporting
About this source
Report on the Sullivan campaign's November 9 motion to intervene and the state's November 9 motion arguing voter privacy, with a statement from Sullivan campaign spokesman Nate Adams and the scheduled November 10 oral argument.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
The state's motion says the campaign wants the division to publicize private information about absentee voters' ballots before it is confirmed and before the voters are notified, and that the Public Records Act does not require the division to retain or produce this provisional information, which does not exist in the requested form.
After the quotation
The motion says the campaign already has view-only access to observe the absentee review board's work and asks the court not to order the division to change its practice midway through the count.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
The reference point is the Alaska Division of Elections' refusal to give Mary Peltola's campaign the absentee register's accept or reject codes and the names of voters whose absentee ballots were rejected during the 2026 count. The state argues that the law does not require the records and that releasing them would intrude on voters' privacy, which defends the refusal.
- Recorded on
- Published here
- People and groups discussed
- Mary Peltola
More from this case
Read the full caseSullivan's campaign moves to intervene, saying Peltola asks the court to 'short-circuit' the absentee review process
“Peltola now asks this Court to disregard the law and to short-circuit the legally prescribed process for ensuring that every lawful ballot is counted”Read statement
Peltola's campaign sues, saying it cannot ensure its voters' ballots were counted without knowing whose were rejected
“cannot ensure that its voters' lawful votes were properly counted without knowing whose absentee ballots were rejected or questioned, and why”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- State says the data implicates voters' privacy because 'many people would not want the world to know' of an absentee mistake
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/8613-in-a-motion-filed-november-9-the-state
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "State says the data implicates voters' privacy because 'many people would not want the world to know' of an absentee mistake". First published: 2026-11-10. Last updated: 2026-11-10. https://disputeindex.com/events/8613-in-a-motion-filed-november-9-the-state