Alaska Senate Race Develops Following Court Ruling as Peltola’s Lead Narrows

By

Alaska Senate Race Tightens as Mary Peltola Loses Court Fight Over Rejected Ballot Records

Alaska’s closely contested U.S. Senate election entered another uncertain phase Wednesday after Democratic candidate Mary Peltola suffered a setback in court and her narrow first-choice vote lead over Republican incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan became smaller in the latest ballot count.

The developments have added another layer of uncertainty to a Senate contest that remained undecided more than a week after the November 3 midterm elections. Thousands of ballots were still being processed, and neither candidate had secured the majority needed to win outright in the first round.

At the center of the dispute are two separate questions: whether Peltola’s campaign can obtain additional information about rejected absentee ballots and how Alaska’s ranked-choice voting system will determine the eventual winner if no candidate receives more than 50% of first-choice votes.

Anchorage Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews ruled Wednesday that the Alaska Division of Elections did not have to produce the detailed report requested by Peltola’s campaign while election workers were still processing ballots. The judge concluded that the request was not reasonable under the circumstances and that the state was not legally required to create the report during the active counting period.

The ruling did not determine the outcome of the Senate election, invalidate ballots or establish that election officials had mishandled votes. Instead, it addressed whether the campaign could compel the state to provide a customized set of preliminary election records before certification.

Meanwhile, the latest reported results showed Peltola with 121,487 first-choice votes, or approximately 48.9%, compared with Sullivan’s 117,512 votes, or about 47.3%. Her advantage stood at 3,975 votes, leaving the race competitive as additional ballots continued to be counted.

Judge rejects Peltola campaign request for absentee ballot information

Peltola’s campaign filed a lawsuit seeking access to detailed records identifying absentee voters whose ballots had been rejected and the reasons election officials had given for rejecting them.

The campaign argued that the information was important to election transparency and would help determine whether eligible voters had been improperly excluded from the count.

The request came as the Senate contest remained close enough that even a relatively small number of additional ballots could influence the first-choice margin or the subsequent ranked-choice tabulation.

Campaign attorneys maintained that they were not seeking to interfere with the counting process. They argued that the requested information would consolidate records already available to election observers and make it easier to monitor how rejected ballots were being handled.

Attorney Abha Kelly, representing the campaign, said the counting process was proceeding smoothly and argued that the request was intended to improve oversight rather than disrupt election officials.

State attorneys opposed the request, saying the information was preliminary, could contain confidential voter details and would require additional work from an election agency already dealing with a substantial volume of ballots.

Assistant Attorney General Margaret Paton-Walsh argued that voters have a legitimate privacy interest in information concerning rejected absentee ballots.

The state also maintained that the requested report could not simply be generated without technical and administrative work. Election officials said the existing database and reporting systems could not readily produce the customized information in the format requested by the campaign.

Judge Matthews sided with the state.

Judge says timing of records request was unreasonable

In his ruling, Matthews emphasized that the Division of Elections was already occupied with processing ballots from the general election and did not have the capacity to prepare the additional report while meeting its existing responsibilities.

The judge wrote that the agency was “currently busy processing ballots from the 2026 general election” and “simply lacks the capacity to generate the report” requested by the campaign.

He also concluded that the request was unreasonable during the election-counting period, even if a similar request might have been considered reasonable at another time.

The judge described the timing as particularly difficult for election administrators, who were working under statutory deadlines to review ballots, complete tabulation procedures and prepare for certification.

The ruling also addressed the legal status of the requested information. The state argued that certain records generated during the preliminary review process were not final public records and remained subject to confidentiality protections.

Under Alaska’s absentee ballot procedures, ballots undergo multiple stages of review. Election workers initially examine returned ballots and record whether they appear to satisfy the requirements for acceptance. Bipartisan review boards then conduct additional checks, and final determinations can change before the statewide results are certified.

That process means an initial rejection or preliminary classification does not necessarily represent the final status of a ballot.

The court concluded that the state was not required to create and disclose the requested report at that stage of the election process.

What the ruling means for election transparency

The court decision represents a setback for Peltola’s campaign, but it does not eliminate the campaign’s ability to observe the counting process or challenge individual ballot decisions through established procedures.

Campaign observers can monitor absentee ballot review operations and raise challenges when they believe election officials have improperly accepted or rejected ballots.

The distinction is important because the lawsuit sought a consolidated report containing identifying information and reasons for rejection, rather than a ruling that particular ballots should be counted.

The state has said that final decisions about rejected absentee ballots may change before certification. After the results are certified, election officials are required to notify voters whose ballots have been rejected.

The Division of Elections also publishes aggregate information about rejected absentee ballots and the reasons for rejection, although that information is generally released after the certification process rather than during the active count.

The judge’s decision therefore concerns the timing, format and legal availability of the requested information. It should not be interpreted as a finding that rejected ballots were handled correctly in every individual case, nor as evidence that the election was compromised.

The Republican campaign of Sen. Dan Sullivan was permitted to intervene in the legal proceedings, giving the incumbent a formal role in the dispute over the requested records.

Peltola’s lead narrows as additional ballots are counted

The legal setback came as the latest vote update showed Sullivan reducing Peltola’s advantage in the first-choice count.

According to the reported Wednesday figures, Peltola had received 121,487 votes, representing approximately 48.9% of the total. Sullivan had 117,512 votes, or about 47.3%.

The difference was 3,975 votes.

Two other candidates had also received enough first-choice support to become relevant to the ranked-choice process. Republican Gerald Heikes had 5,426 votes, while independent candidate Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. had 4,100.

Together, the two candidates had received more than 9,500 first-choice votes, a total substantially larger than the margin separating Peltola and the incumbent.

However, those ballots cannot simply be added to either major candidate’s total. Under ranked-choice voting, their next available preferences determine where votes transfer when candidates are eliminated.

The latest figures were preliminary. Election officials were still processing absentee and other outstanding ballots, and the final number of votes could change before certification.

The remaining count is particularly important because Alaska has historically received substantial numbers of absentee ballots after Election Day, including ballots mailed from overseas.

How Alaska’s ranked-choice voting system could decide the Senate race

Alaska uses a ranked-choice voting system for general elections. Voters may rank candidates in order of preference rather than selecting only one candidate.

A candidate who receives more than 50% of first-choice votes wins without additional rounds.

If no candidate reaches that threshold, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. Ballots cast for that candidate are then examined to determine the next available preference. Those votes are transferred to the remaining candidates according to the rankings marked by voters.

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

In the Alaska Senate race, neither Peltola nor Sullivan had reached the required first-choice majority in the reported count. That meant the eventual outcome could depend on how supporters of Heikes and Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. ranked the remaining candidates.

A ballot does not necessarily transfer to a candidate simply because its first-choice candidate has been eliminated. If a voter did not rank another continuing candidate, the ballot can become inactive in later rounds.

This is why the number of first-choice votes received by the two leading candidates does not provide a complete picture of the final result.

The state planned to conduct the official ranked-choice tabulation on November 18, after the eligible ballots had been reviewed and processed.

Until that count is completed, projections based on partial ballot data should be treated cautiously. Independent analyses have produced different estimates because the available ballot records did not necessarily include every vote already reflected in the preliminary first-choice totals.

Similar-name candidate controversy adds another complication

The election has also drawn attention because of Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., an independent candidate whose name closely resembles that of Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan.

The presence of two candidates with similar names has prompted political controversy and allegations about whether the independent candidate was recruited to affect the Republican incumbent’s vote.

The controversy has been described as a possible spoiler-candidate effort. Critics have questioned whether the independent candidacy could have confused voters or changed the distribution of first-choice ballots.

Peltola has denied knowing about an alleged effort to recruit candidates for that purpose. Sullivan has publicly challenged her account.

Those claims remain separate from the court ruling over rejected absentee ballot records. The judge did not determine whether a spoiler-candidate scheme existed, whether voters were confused or whether either campaign engaged in improper conduct.

The distinction is important because allegations involving campaign strategy require separate evidence and legal review. The existence of a candidate with a similar name does not, by itself, establish coordination or wrongdoing.

The federal government has also raised concerns about potential voter confusion in Alaska’s election system through separate legal proceedings. Any court findings in those matters would need to be considered independently of the state judge’s decision on the absentee records request.

Alaska voters consider whether to repeal ranked-choice voting

The Senate contest is unfolding alongside another major election question: whether Alaska voters want to retain the state’s current election system.

A ballot measure seeks to repeal ranked-choice voting and restore a system based on party primaries and single-choice general elections.

The measure also includes changes to campaign finance rules adopted as part of the state’s broader election reforms.

In the latest reported count, opponents of the repeal measure were ahead, with approximately 52.5% voting against it and 47.5% supporting it.

Those figures were also preliminary and subject to change as additional ballots were processed.

The result could have significant consequences for future elections in Alaska. If the repeal measure fails, the current system would remain in place. If voters approve it, the state would move toward restoring the previous election framework, subject to the measure’s implementation requirements.

The close Senate race has renewed public attention on how ranked-choice voting works, particularly the transfer of ballots and the possibility that the candidate leading in the first round may not necessarily win after later rounds.

Supporters of the system argue that it allows voters to express multiple preferences and can reduce the risk of a candidate winning with only a small plurality. Critics contend that the process is complicated and may make election results more difficult for voters to understand.

The ballot measure is therefore being watched as a separate test of public opinion about Alaska’s election rules.

Election officials face deadlines before certification

The Division of Elections continued processing ballots after the November 3 election, with additional results expected before the state completes its review.

Alaska allows absentee ballots mailed from within the United States to arrive within a specified period after Election Day. Ballots mailed from overseas have a longer delivery window.

Election workers must review returned ballots, verify eligibility, resolve questions about acceptance or rejection and complete the required tabulation procedures.

The state’s target date for the ranked-choice count was November 18. Certification was scheduled for November 25.

Those dates leave election administrators with a limited period to complete the remaining work while responding to legal challenges and requests from campaigns.

The court’s ruling allows the Division of Elections to continue prioritizing ballot processing rather than preparing the customized report sought by Peltola’s campaign.

It does not prevent the campaign from using other available procedures to monitor the count or raise specific concerns about ballots.

What happens next in Alaska’s Senate contest

The next major milestone is the completion of the outstanding ballot count and the official ranked-choice tabulation.

If the final first-choice results remain below 50% for both leading candidates, election officials will begin eliminating lower-performing candidates and transferring ballots according to voters’ next available preferences.

The final result will depend on the number of ballots that remain active in each round and how voters ranked the candidates.

Peltola’s first-choice lead gives her an advantage in the preliminary count, but the transfer process remains an important part of determining the winner. Sullivan also remains close enough that the outcome cannot be established from the current figures alone.

The separate dispute over rejected absentee ballot records may continue to have political consequences, particularly if the campaign considers further legal action. But the court’s ruling does not decide the underlying Senate contest.

The election also remains connected to the statewide debate over ranked-choice voting, with the repeal measure still being counted.

For now, Alaska’s Senate race remains unresolved. The final answer will depend on the remaining ballots, the official ranked-choice tabulation and the certification process scheduled for later in November.

EXPLORE MORE:

Gina Hinojosa Faces Key Decision on Texas Border Security After Defeating Greg Abbott

Related Posts

Scroll to Top