Alaska Senate Showdown: Peltola Demands Answers on Rejected Ballots While Sullivan Backs State — What Happens Before the Final Count?
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — November 11, 2026
The fight for Alaska’s closely watched U.S. Senate seat has moved from the ballot-counting process into the courtroom, as Democratic candidate Mary Peltola seeks access to records identifying absentee voters whose ballots have been rejected or questioned.
Peltola’s campaign argues that the information is necessary to help ensure every eligible vote is properly counted. State election officials, however, say the requested records contain confidential voter information and are preliminary documents that can change as the review process continues.
Republican incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan’s campaign is supporting the state’s position, while asking that any information ordered released by the court be made equally available to all candidates.
The dispute comes as Alaska continues counting ballots in a Senate contest that remains too close to call. With the state’s ranked-choice voting system and outstanding absentee ballots still in play, the court’s decision could become another important development in an election already marked by intense political and legal battles.
But there is a critical distinction: the lawsuit does not establish that election officials improperly rejected votes. State officials say no absentee ballot is finally rejected until the required review process is completed.
Why Mary Peltola Is Taking Alaska Election Officials to Court
Peltola’s campaign, operating as Alaskans for Mary, filed a lawsuit on November 6 seeking access to records showing which absentee ballots were rejected or questioned and the reasons behind those decisions.
The campaign says it needs the information to monitor whether eligible voters have been excluded from the count.
Its legal argument relies on Alaska’s public-records law. Campaign attorneys contend that the ballot information should be accessible because election observers are already permitted to monitor absentee-ballot review proceedings.
The campaign is not asking the court to declare Peltola the winner. Instead, it wants more direct access to information that could help it examine how ballots are being processed.
The request is particularly significant because the Senate race remains unresolved and even a relatively small number of ballots could matter in a close contest.
Peltola’s legal team has also said it does not believe the ongoing review process itself is being disrupted. Its concern is whether the campaign can obtain enough information to help ensure that qualified voters’ ballots are counted.
Why Alaska Is Refusing to Release the Requested Records
The Alaska Department of Law argues that the requested reports are preliminary, confidential and subject to change.
According to the state, the daily records identify individual voters and include information such as home addresses. Officials say the reports are working documents used during the review process rather than finalized public records.
The state also argues that releasing the information in the manner requested could create additional administrative work and potentially slow ballot processing.
Election officials have explained that authorized campaign observers can inspect limited versions of the reports under confidentiality agreements. However, observers cannot keep, copy or record the information.
The state says its voter database cannot easily produce a version that removes all confidential information while preserving the details sought by the campaign.
Another important point is the timing of voter notifications. State attorneys told the court that voters can check their absentee-ballot status through an online system, but the information is not made available until at least 10 days after certification.
The state argues that campaigns should not receive preliminary voter-specific information before the affected voters themselves can access it.
The court must now weigh the campaign’s public-records argument against the state’s privacy and election-administration concerns.
Dan Sullivan Supports the State’s Position
The dispute is not limited to Peltola’s campaign and state election officials.
Sullivan’s campaign has also entered the legal discussion, supporting the state’s position on the requested records.
However, the Republican campaign has made an important distinction: if the judge orders the state to produce any documents or data, Sullivan’s campaign wants the same information made available to every candidate in the affected race at the same time.
That position places the focus on equal access rather than allowing one campaign to receive information unavailable to its competitors.
The legal dispute is therefore about more than whether the records should be disclosed. It also raises questions about voter privacy, campaign access and fairness while election officials are still processing ballots.
The Senate Race Remains Uncalled as Peltola Extends Her Lead
The lawsuit is unfolding alongside continuing updates to Alaska’s Senate results.
Peltola increased her first-choice lead over Sullivan in the November 10 update reported by Alaska Public Media. She was leading approximately 49% to 47.2%, after election officials counted more than 24,000 additional votes.
That represented a larger advantage than the earlier margin of 2,517 votes reported on November 9.
Nevertheless, the race remains unresolved.
The state has continued processing early, absentee and questioned ballots. The Associated Press has not declared a winner, and the latest unofficial totals should not be confused with certified election results.
The growing margin is politically significant, but it does not eliminate the need to complete the count and apply the state’s election rules.
Alaska Public Media also reported that the latest ballot data could affect the ranked-choice outcome if neither leading candidate receives more than half of the first-choice votes.
How Alaska’s Ranked-Choice Voting System Could Decide the Winner
Alaska uses ranked-choice voting in its general elections.
Instead of selecting only one candidate, voters can rank candidates in order of preference.
If a candidate receives more than 50% of first-choice votes, that candidate wins without requiring further tabulation.
If no candidate reaches that threshold, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated. Ballots for that candidate are then transferred to the next ranked candidate, provided the voter listed another eligible choice.
The process continues until a candidate secures a majority of the continuing votes.
This means that the first-choice leader is not automatically the winner when no candidate has crossed the 50% threshold.
The presence of another candidate named Daniel J. Sullivan has also made the race unusually complicated. He is a separate candidate from Republican incumbent Dan S. Sullivan.
The state’s ranked-choice rules determine how ballots are transferred. Votes for one candidate cannot simply be reassigned to another candidate because they share a similar name.
The Division of Elections has scheduled the ranked-choice tabulation for November 18 if the Senate race still requires it.
Why the Rejected-Ballot Dispute Matters
Absentee ballots are especially important in Alaska, where communities are separated by long distances and some areas are accessible primarily by air or water.
Voting by mail allows eligible residents to participate without traveling to a polling location on Election Day.
But absentee ballots must satisfy the applicable legal requirements before they can be counted.
A missing signature, for example, can create a problem during ballot review.
The Associated Press reported that Alaska does not have a process allowing voters to correct common absentee-ballot errors such as a missing signature.
That makes the review process especially important. If a ballot is ultimately rejected, the voter may not have an opportunity to correct the problem under the state’s current procedures.
However, a preliminary classification is not necessarily a final rejection. The state says the final decision comes after the review process is completed.
That distinction is essential when evaluating claims about potentially excluded votes.
The campaign wants to examine the records. The state wants to protect preliminary voter information. The court must determine what the law requires.
The Earlier Controversy Involving Two Candidates Named Dan Sullivan
The absentee-ballot lawsuit is only one part of a much larger election controversy.
Before Election Day, Alaska’s Senate contest attracted national attention because two candidates on the ballot had similar names: Republican incumbent Dan S. Sullivan and retired teacher Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.
Republicans 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, while Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. also denied being recruited by her campaign.
The allegations have been the subject of federal scrutiny, but allegations and investigative activity are not proof of criminal wrongdoing.
WWC ONE MEDIA previously examined the controversy in Trump’s DOJ Floods Alaska Senate Race With 40-Plus Subpoenas Over Two Candidates Named Dan Sullivan.
That investigation is separate from the current state-court case. The new lawsuit concerns access to preliminary absentee-ballot records, not whether the second Sullivan’s candidacy involved unlawful conduct.
Federal Lawsuit Over Alaska’s Election Was Previously Dismissed
The Trump administration also pursued a separate federal case before the November 3 election.
The Justice Department sought to prevent Alaska from certifying the Senate result under certain circumstances if incumbent Sullivan lost by fewer votes than the total received by Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.
The federal judge dismissed the lawsuit on November 1.
U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason found problems with the requested remedy, including the difficulty of identifying ballots supposedly affected by voter confusion without compromising ballot secrecy.
The Justice Department appealed the decision.
That federal litigation is separate from Peltola’s current lawsuit over access to absentee-ballot records. The dismissal did not decide the winner of the Senate race or determine whether the state must release the records now being disputed.
For more background, see WWC ONE MEDIA’s report, DOJ Issues New Subpoenas in Alaska Senate Race as ‘Spoiler Candidate’ Allegations Escalate.
What Other News Organizations Are Reporting
Coverage from other outlets helps put the lawsuit and the changing vote totals into perspective.
Associated Press: The AP’s November 11 report focuses on the arguments presented to Alaska Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews. It explains the campaign’s request, the state’s privacy concerns, the restrictions placed on election observers and the fact that no absentee ballot is finally rejected until the review process is complete.
Alaska Public Media: Its November 10 election update reported that Peltola had increased her first-choice lead to approximately 49% against Sullivan’s 47.2%, after officials counted more than 24,000 additional votes. The outlet also explained the possible role of ranked-choice tabulation.
Alaska Beacon: Its November 9 analysis examined the changing vote totals and how the transfer of lower-ranked candidates’ ballots could affect the final outcome. It also emphasized that preliminary calculations are not the same as the official ranked-choice tabulation.
Reuters: Its November 6 report documented the original lawsuit, the campaign’s request for rejected-ballot records and the state’s argument that the information is confidential while the review remains underway.
Together, these reports show that Alaska is dealing with two connected but distinct questions: how the remaining ballots will determine the Senate winner, and how much information campaigns should receive while election officials are still reviewing those ballots.
What Happens Next?
The immediate legal question is whether Judge Thomas Matthews will order the state to provide the requested records, deny the request or require a different form of disclosure.
After Tuesday’s hearing, the judge said he expected to issue a written ruling within a day.
The election count will continue independently of the lawsuit.
Alaska’s published schedule includes November 13 as the deadline for eligible domestic absentee ballots to arrive and November 18 as the deadline for eligible overseas ballots. November 18 is also the target date for ranked-choice tabulation if no candidate receives more than 50% of first-choice votes.
The state is targeting November 25 for certification.
These are scheduled milestones, not a guarantee that every legal issue will be resolved by those dates.
Until the count and required procedures are complete, neither Peltola nor Sullivan should be described as the certified winner.
The Bigger Question: Can Alaska Protect Voter Privacy While Ensuring Every Eligible Ballot Counts?
Alaska’s Senate race has become a test of election transparency, voter privacy and public confidence.
Peltola’s campaign says access to rejected-ballot records would help it monitor whether qualified voters are being properly represented in the count.
State officials say releasing preliminary records containing personal information could compromise privacy and interfere with the administration of the election.
Sullivan’s campaign supports the state’s position but wants any court-ordered disclosure shared equally among candidates.
The judge’s decision could clarify how Alaska balances public-records laws with confidentiality protections during an active election.
But the legal dispute should not be mistaken for proof that ballots were improperly rejected, just as the state’s privacy argument should not be treated as a final ruling on the public’s right to access election records.
The ultimate result will depend on eligible ballots, the state’s review process and, if necessary, ranked-choice tabulation.
