An already tense US Senate election in Alaska has encountered another major legal setback after a state judge rejected Democratic candidate Mary Peltola’s campaign request for a centralized list of voters whose absentee ballots were rejected.

The decision comes as Peltola and Republican incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan remain locked in one of the country’s closest unresolved Senate contests following the November 3 midterm elections.

Alaska Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews ruled Wednesday that the campaign’s request was not reasonable under the circumstances, particularly because election officials are racing to complete ballot reviews and meet important election deadlines.

The lawsuit was filed by Peltola’s campaign, which argued that access to the records would help determine whether qualified voters’ ballots were properly counted.

State officials, however, maintained that the requested information contains confidential voter details and cannot reasonably be produced in the requested format while the counting process is underway.

The ruling does not establish that election officials improperly rejected ballots. Nor does it declare either candidate the winner.

Instead, it addresses whether the campaign can obtain sensitive, preliminary election records during an active ballot-counting process.

With Alaska’s Senate race still unresolved, the court decision raises another question: Can the state complete its election process without further legal challenges before the final ranked-choice tabulation?

Judge Says Peltola Campaign’s Request Is Not Reasonable

The legal dispute began when Peltola’s campaign, operating as Alaskans for Mary, sued the Alaska Division of Elections on November 6.

The campaign sought records identifying absentee voters whose ballots had been rejected or questioned, along with the reasons behind those decisions.

Its attorneys argued that the information was important for monitoring whether eligible voters were being excluded from the election results.

During court arguments, campaign attorney Abha Khanna maintained that the requested information should be accessible under Alaska’s public-records law.

She also argued that campaign observers already receive limited information while monitoring absentee-ballot review proceedings at election offices.

The campaign wanted access to the information through a more centralized reporting process.

However, the state challenged that request, arguing that the reports contain confidential information and are not ordinary public records available for unrestricted distribution.

In his written ruling, Judge Matthews acknowledged that records could theoretically be redacted to remove sensitive information.

But he concluded that the Division of Elections was not required to produce the requested records under the circumstances.

The judge pointed to the difficulty of preparing a suitable report while election officials were working to complete their primary responsibility: administering the election and counting ballots.

He described the timing of the campaign’s request as particularly problematic.

The ruling represents a setback for Peltola’s effort to obtain the information in the format she requested.

It does not, however, resolve every question surrounding the treatment of individual absentee ballots.

Why Alaska Refused to Release the Rejected-Ballot Information

The Alaska Department of Law argued that the requested reports contain confidential voter information, including home addresses.

Election officials also said their existing voter database cannot easily generate a customized report that removes protected details while preserving the information sought by the campaign.

Producing such a document could require assistance from an outside vendor, creating additional work during an already demanding period.

The state further argued that releasing preliminary records could disrupt ballot processing and potentially delay the completion of election duties.

According to an affidavit from Michaela Thompson, who oversees the absentee ballot review boards, campaign observers can inspect limited versions of certain reports.

However, those observers must sign confidentiality agreements and cannot keep, copy or record the information.

The reports also contain personal details that many voters would reasonably expect to remain protected.

The state’s position is that election transparency must be balanced against voter privacy and the need to complete the count efficiently.

That argument was central to the judge’s decision.

What Peltola’s Campaign Wanted to Find Out

Peltola’s campaign has said its objective is to help ensure that every qualified vote is counted.

The request focused on identifying voters whose absentee ballots had been rejected or questioned and understanding the reasons behind those decisions.

This information could help the campaign examine whether ballot-review procedures are being applied correctly.

However, the campaign has not established through this lawsuit that widespread improper ballot rejection occurred.

During the court proceedings, Khanna said the campaign had not seen a reason to believe the ongoing absentee review process was being conducted improperly.

She described the process as proceeding smoothly.

The dispute was therefore about access to information and the ability to monitor the process, rather than a court finding that the election count was fraudulent.

That distinction is important as political claims surrounding the closely contested election continue to circulate.

Dan Sullivan’s Campaign Backed the State’s Position

Republican incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan’s campaign also entered the legal dispute.

Sullivan’s representatives supported the state’s opposition to the requested disclosure.

The campaign argued that granting Peltola access to preliminary voter-specific information could provide one candidate with an advantage unavailable to others.

However, Sullivan’s campaign also made clear that if the court ordered any records released, the information should be made equally and simultaneously available to all candidates in the affected race.

The position reflects the broader concern that election information should not be distributed selectively while votes are still being processed.

The dispute therefore involves three competing interests:

• Peltola’s campaign wants access to information to monitor ballot processing.
• The state wants to protect confidential voter information and avoid disrupting its election duties.
• Sullivan’s campaign wants equal treatment for all candidates if disclosure is ordered.

The judge’s ruling favored the state’s position on the specific request.

Alaska’s Senate Race Remains Too Close to Call

The courtroom dispute is unfolding while Alaska continues counting ballots from the November 3 election.

Peltola, a former Democratic member of the US House of Representatives, is challenging two-term Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan.

Alaska’s Senate contest has attracted national attention because the outcome remains unresolved while other major races have already been called.

The Associated Press reported that Alaska was the only US Senate race still too early to call at the time of its November 11 report.

Ballots from early voting, absentee voting and other categories remain part of the continuing process.

The state also accepts eligible overseas ballots for up to 15 days after the general election.

That makes November 18 the final day for those ballots to arrive.

The remaining votes matter because the election uses ranked-choice voting if no candidate receives more than half of the first-choice votes.

Consequently, the unofficial first-choice leader is not automatically the winner.

The final result must follow the state’s prescribed counting and tabulation procedures.

How Alaska’s Ranked-Choice Voting Could Determine the Winner

Alaska uses a ranked-choice voting system in its general elections.

Rather than choosing only one candidate, voters can rank candidates according to preference.

If a candidate receives more than 50% of the first-choice votes, that candidate wins outright.

If nobody reaches that threshold, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated.

Ballots cast for the eliminated candidate are then transferred to the next ranked candidate, provided another eligible preference is listed.

The process continues until a candidate receives a majority of the continuing votes.

This means the first round of results may not determine the final winner.

The Alaska Division of Elections is targeting November 18 for ranked-choice tabulation if the Senate contest still requires it.

The deadline for overseas ballots and the planned tabulation date make the coming days especially important.

However, the scheduled count should not be confused with final certification.

The state is targeting November 25 for certification.

The Rejected-Ballot Issue Could Matter Beyond the Two Campaigns

The lawsuit also raises broader questions about how election officials balance transparency and voter privacy.

Absentee voting is particularly important in Alaska, where communities are geographically distant and some residents face substantial travel challenges when participating in elections.

Mail voting provides an important way for eligible residents to cast ballots without traveling to a polling place.

But absentee ballots must satisfy applicable election requirements before they can be counted.

A missing signature, for example, can create a problem during ballot review.

The Associated Press has reported that Alaska does not have a process allowing voters to correct common absentee-ballot errors such as a missing signature.

This makes the review process particularly important for voters whose ballots may be questioned.

Still, a preliminary entry in a review report does not necessarily mean that a ballot has been finally rejected.

The state says final decisions are made through the required review process, with results ultimately subject to certification.

The latest court ruling does not change those underlying election procedures.

It addresses whether the state must provide the centralized records requested by Peltola’s campaign.

Earlier Alaska Election Controversies Add to the Political Pressure

The current lawsuit is not the first legal controversy surrounding Alaska’s Senate election.

Before Election Day, the contest attracted national attention because two candidates on the ballot had similar names: Republican incumbent Dan S. Sullivan and independent candidate Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.

Republican officials alleged that the second candidate was encouraged to run to confuse voters and weaken the incumbent’s support.

Peltola denied knowing about the alleged recruitment effort, and Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. also denied being recruited by her campaign.

The allegations remain disputed and should not be treated as proven criminal wrongdoing.

The Justice Department separately pursued an investigation involving the alleged recruitment effort, while Alaska’s election process became the subject of additional legal disputes.

WWC ONE MEDIA previously examined that controversy in its report, “Trump’s DOJ Floods Alaska Senate Race With 40-Plus Subpoenas Over Two Candidates Named Dan Sullivan — But Could the Investigation Change the Election?”

That investigation is separate from the current absentee-ballot lawsuit.

The new case concerns access to preliminary ballot-review records, not whether the second Sullivan’s candidacy involved unlawful conduct.

Another earlier WWC report, “Alaska Senate Race Hangs on 637 Votes as Sullivan Moves to Block Peltola’s Absentee Ballot Lawsuit,” covered Sullivan’s campaign intervention and the legal arguments before the latest ruling.

The court’s decision now provides a clearer answer on the specific records request: the campaign was not entitled to the centralized report in the form and at the time it sought.

What Other News Organizations Are Reporting

Several news organizations have covered the dispute and its implications for Alaska’s unresolved Senate contest.

Associated Press: The AP’s November 11 report detailed Judge Matthews’ decision, the state’s privacy concerns, the technical difficulty of producing redacted records and the remaining election deadlines. Its November 12 account also confirmed that the judge considered the request unreasonable under the circumstances.

Alaska Public Media: Its November 6 report explained why Peltola’s campaign went to court, the public-records argument behind the lawsuit and the state’s position that preliminary ballot information should remain confidential.

Reuters: Its November 6 coverage reported that the campaign sought immediate access to records identifying rejected absentee ballots as the candidates remained separated by a narrow margin. It also outlined the state’s argument that disclosure could burden ballot processing.

Alaska’s News Source (KTUU): Its November 9 report documented the planned court hearing, the state’s opposition and Sullivan’s campaign decision to intervene. The outlet also reported the competing arguments over whether releasing the information could give one campaign an advantage.

Together, these reports show that the controversy is primarily a legal dispute over election records, voter privacy and campaign access while the counting process remains underway.

What Happens Next in Alaska’s Senate Election?

The immediate court question has been answered: the state is not required to produce the centralized records requested by Peltola’s campaign at this stage.

The election count, however, continues.

The next important dates include:

• November 13: Deadline for eligible domestic absentee ballots to arrive.
• November 18: Deadline for eligible overseas absentee ballots.
• November 18: Target date for ranked-choice tabulation if no candidate receives a majority of first-choice votes.
• November 25: Target date for election certification.

These are scheduled milestones and should not be treated as guarantees that every possible legal issue will be resolved by those dates.

The final outcome will depend on the eligible ballots received, the review process and the application of Alaska’s ranked-choice voting rules.

Neither candidate should be described as the certified winner until the state completes the required procedures.

The Bigger Question: Can Alaska Finish Counting Without Another Courtroom Fight?

The latest ruling gives Alaska election officials some breathing room as they work through the remaining ballots.

For Peltola’s campaign, however, the decision means its attempt to obtain a centralized list of rejected absentee voters has been unsuccessful.

For Sullivan’s campaign, the ruling represents a legal victory on the specific disclosure issue.

For voters, the larger concern remains whether every eligible ballot is processed according to the law while personal information is protected.

The case illustrates how a close election can turn routine administrative questions into major legal and political disputes.

It also highlights why allegations of improperly rejected ballots must be supported by evidence rather than assumptions based on preliminary records.

With overseas ballots still eligible to arrive and ranked-choice tabulation approaching, Alaska’s Senate contest remains unsettled.

The judge has rejected Peltola’s request for the records, but the election itself is far from over. Could the remaining ballots and ranked-choice count still reshape the Senate race before Alaska certifies its final result?