Mary Peltola Loses Alaska Ballot-Records Lawsuit, Why a Judge Refused Access to Rejected Absentee Ballot Records, Can Alaska Voters Fix Rejected Ballots, and What It Means for the Senate Race

An Anchorage Superior Court judge has denied a request by Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Mary Peltola’s campaign for records identifying absentee voters whose ballots were being rejected, ruling that Alaska election officials were not required to produce the report while they were still counting ballots.

Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews issued the ruling on November 11, 2026, one day after a hearing, in Alaska’s still-unresolved race between Peltola and Republican incumbent Sen. Dan Sullivan. The Associated Press reported that Matthews called the campaign’s request “not reasonable,” particularly given the time crunch election officials face as the count continues.

The ruling does not mean Peltola lost the Senate election, that any voter was ineligible, or that any ballot was unlawfully rejected. It concerns access to records, not who won.

As of November 12, 2026 at 8:34 a.m. PKT, AP’s count showed Peltola with 121,487 votes (48.9%) and Sullivan with 117,512 votes (47.3%), with an estimated 86% of votes counted. AP had not called the race at that time. These numbers may have changed since and are first-choice counts, not a final ranked-choice result.

Peltola Alaska Ballot-Records Lawsuit: Quick Facts

Detail	Information
Plaintiff	Alaskans for Mary, Peltola’s campaign committee
Defendants	Alaska Division of Elections, Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom and Elections Director Carol Beecher (as reported)
Court	Alaska Superior Court, Anchorage
Judge	Thomas Matthews
Case number	3AN-26-10304CI
Lawsuit filed	November 6, 2026
Hearing	November 10, 2026
Ruling	November 11, 2026
Records sought	List of absentee voters whose ballots were rejected and the reasons
Legal basis	Alaska Public Records Act
Result	Request denied
Senate race status	Not called by AP as of Nov. 12, 8:34 a.m. PKT
AP count (same time)	Peltola 121,487 (48.9%); Dan S. Sullivan 117,512 (47.3%)
Estimated votes counted	86% (AP estimate)
Ranked-choice tabulation target	November 18, 2026
Certification target	November 25, 2026

What Did the Peltola Campaign Ask the Court to Do?

Peltola’s campaign sued the Alaska Division of Elections on November 6, seeking a copy of the register showing which absentee ballots were being rejected and why. According to reporting, the campaign first requested the information on October 27, before Election Day, and renewed the request after the November 3 election. The lawsuit said the state’s refusal violated Alaska’s open-records law.

The campaign argued that knowing which voters faced rejection would help it make sure eligible voters’ ballots were not improperly rejected. It did not ask the judge to declare Peltola the winner or to order specific ballots counted. It asked for administrative records.

According to reporting on the case, Sullivan’s campaign intervened to oppose the release, joining the state’s position that the preliminary data is confidential and that producing it mid-count would burden election officials and raise privacy concerns.

Why Did the Campaign Want the Records Before Certification?

Timing was central. Alaska was still reviewing absentee and questioned ballots after the November 3 election. The campaign argued that information is far more useful while ballots are still under review than after certification. Peltola’s attorney, Abha Khanna, told the court the campaign did not want to disrupt the count and that the review process appeared to be going “incredibly smoothly.”

Why Did Judge Matthews Reject the Request?

Matthews concluded the Division of Elections was not required to create or produce the requested report during the active count. He wrote that “in theory” records from the voter database could be redacted and produced, but that doing so now was not reasonable or required. The reasoning came down to three practical and legal points.

1. The Division Was Under Heavy Time Pressure

Election staff were reviewing absentee envelopes, verifying eligibility and preparing for ranked-choice tabulation and certification deadlines. The judge found that generating a new report would pull them away from those duties. He reportedly wrote that the timing of the campaign’s request “could simply not be worse.”

2. The Data Contained Confidential Voter Information

The records came from the state’s voter registration database and included information about individual voters, including addresses that may be confidential. State officials argued the report could not be released in its existing form without revealing protected information.

3. The Database Could Not Easily Produce a Redacted Report

Reporting on the testimony indicated the existing system could not automatically generate a tailored, redacted report. Producing one would require creating a new document and removing confidential information, which the judge found was not reasonable to require at this stage.

Does the Ruling Mean Election Transparency Does Not Matter?

No. The decision was narrow. It addressed whether the state had to produce this specific report, in this form, during the count. It did not hold that campaigns can never obtain election records or that the public has no right to inspect appropriate election information.

What Alaska Public Records Law Applies?

The campaign relied on Alaska’s Public Records Act.

Alaska Statute § 40.25.110

This is the core provision giving the public access to records kept by state agencies, subject to exceptions. It reflects Alaska’s policy favoring open government, but it does not require every document an agency uses to be released immediately in any form requested.

Alaska Statute § 40.25.115

This provision covers electronic services and products, including specially generated database reports. It allows agencies to provide such reports but also provides that supplying them must not take priority over the agency’s primary duties. The state argued that preparing this report would divert resources from completing the election count.

Alaska Statute § 40.25.120

This section lists exceptions to disclosure, including records that must be kept confidential under other law. The state argued that its preliminary absentee-ballot reports contained protected voter information.

Related Articles

• Two Dan Sullivans on Alaska’s Senate Ballot 
• Alaska Governor Orders Investigation Into Mary Peltola’s Senate Campaign 
• Minnesota 1st Congressional District Recount 

How Does Alaska Review Absentee Ballots?

Absentee ballots in Alaska are processed in several stages:

1. Receipt and preliminary review. Election officials receive absentee ballots, record them in the state’s election system and check whether they appear to meet statutory requirements.
2. Review by regional boards. Absentee ballot review boards examine envelopes and related information. Campaigns and parties may have authorized observers, who must follow confidentiality rules.
3. State Review Board. Additional review before final certification.

A preliminary indication that a ballot may be rejected is not necessarily the final determination. That distinction was part of the state’s argument against releasing preliminary data.

Why Couldn’t the Campaign Just Use Observers?

Alaska allows authorized observers to watch parts of the review. According to the state, observers must agree to confidentiality restrictions and cannot freely copy or retain the sensitive reports they see. The campaign wanted a consolidated electronic report it could use outside those limits. A right to observe a process does not necessarily create a right to unrestricted electronic copies of every underlying record.

Can Alaska Voters Fix Rejected Absentee Ballots?

Alaska has no formal ballot “cure” process for most rejected absentee ballots. A cure process lets a voter correct a problem, such as a missing signature, within a set deadline. In Alaska, ballots with problems such as missing signatures, late postmarks or witnessing issues generally stay rejected.

What If You Think Your Ballot Was Wrongly Rejected?

You can contact the Alaska Division of Elections and ask about the status of your ballot. That does not guarantee a rejected ballot can be corrected or counted, and legal remedies depend on the specific defect and stage of review. According to the state’s representations in the litigation, voters receive rejection notices after the review process. The judge did not find that the state had violated any voter-notification requirement.

Is Mary Peltola Winning the Alaska Senate Race?

As of November 12, 2026 at 8:34 a.m. PKT, AP’s count showed Peltola with 121,487 votes (48.9%), Sullivan with 117,512 (47.3%), Gerald L. Heikes with 5,426 (2.2%) and Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. with 4,100 (1.6%). AP estimated 86% of votes counted. AP had not called the race. The numbers may have changed since and are not final.

A lead in first-choice votes is not an official result, and the count is not finished. If no candidate wins more than 50% of first-choice votes, ranked-choice tabulation follows.

How Does Alaska’s Ranked-Choice Voting Work?

Alaska general elections use ranked-choice voting. Voters rank candidates in order of preference. If a candidate gets more than 50% of first-choice votes, that candidate wins outright. If not, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and those ballots go to each voter’s next available choice. The process repeats until a candidate has a majority of the remaining votes.

Why Are There Two Candidates Named Sullivan?

The 2026 ballot includes Mary Peltola, incumbent Republican Dan S. Sullivan, Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. (listed by AP as undeclared) and Gerald L. Heikes. The two similarly named candidates have prompted separate disputes over possible ballot confusion. Those disputes are legally separate from the records case.

Do Votes for Daniel J. Sullivan Transfer to the Incumbent?

No. Ranked-choice ballots transfer according to each voter’s own ranking, not because candidates share a surname. A voter who ranked Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. first might have ranked Peltola, Dan S. Sullivan, another candidate or no one second.

How Is This Case Different From Other Alaska Election Disputes?

The records case is separate from the same-name candidate litigation, from the Governor’s investigation into allegations about the recruitment of a second candidate with the incumbent’s name, and from related federal court actions. The November 11 ruling decided only the public-records request. It did not decide whether anyone engaged in misconduct.

Does the Ruling Mean Alaska Officials Made No Errors?

No. The judge did not review the validity of every absentee ballot or decide whether every eligibility decision was correct. The campaign’s decision to seek records does not establish that improper rejections occurred, and the ruling does not show that every procedure was flawless.

Can Peltola Appeal?

Possibly. A party adversely affected by a state superior court ruling may have appellate options, subject to jurisdiction and deadlines. An appeal is not guaranteed to succeed. According to Alaska Beacon, the campaign had not immediately said whether it would appeal. No appeal or reversal had been reported as of this writing.

Alaska Senate Election Timeline

Date	Event
October 27, 2026	Campaign first requests the records (as reported)
November 3, 2026	General election
November 6	Peltola campaign files public-records lawsuit
November 10	Court hears arguments
November 11	Judge Matthews denies the request
November 13	Deadline for qualifying domestic mailed absentee ballots (per state calendar)
November 18	Deadline for qualifying overseas ballots; ranked-choice tabulation target
November 19 onward	State Review Board proceedings
November 25	Certification target

These dates come from the Division of Elections calendar and can change. Confirm current dates with the Division of Elections.

Why Does This Matter for the U.S. Senate?

Alaska is reported to be the last unresolved Senate race of the 2026 cycle. Its outcome affects the final size of the Senate majority, which can matter for committee assignments, floor votes and nominations. Election officials count ballots under the same legal standards regardless of which candidate benefits.

Frequently Asked Questions

Did Mary Peltola lose her lawsuit?

Yes. Judge Matthews denied her campaign’s request for the rejected-ballot records on November 11, 2026.

Did Mary Peltola lose the Senate election?

No. AP had not called the race as of November 12, 2026, 8:34 a.m. PKT. The lawsuit concerned records, not the winner.

Why did the judge deny the request?

He found the report could not reasonably be produced during the active count, citing time pressure, confidential voter information and the effort needed to create and redact a new report.

Were ballots illegally rejected?

The ruling does not establish that, and no finding of widespread unlawful rejection was made.

Can Alaska voters cure a rejected absentee ballot?

Alaska has no formal cure process for most rejected absentee ballots.

Who is ahead?

As of Nov. 12, 2026, 8:34 a.m. PKT, AP’s count showed Peltola with 48.9% and Dan S. Sullivan with 47.3%, with an estimated 86% of votes counted and no call. These numbers may have changed.

Is this connected to the two Sullivans?

Both involve the same election, but the legal questions are different.

When will the winner be known?

The state targets ranked-choice tabulation on November 18 and certification on November 25, but timing depends on completing the review.

What Happens Next?

Alaska’s Division of Elections will keep reviewing and counting eligible ballots. The campaign can consider any available legal response to the ruling. Ranked-choice tabulation, if needed, will determine the outcome.

The court decided that this particular request could not reasonably be fulfilled at this stage. It did not decide who won the election or whether any individual absentee ballot was counted correctly.

Sources and Legal References

1. Associated Press election results, Alaska U.S. Senate (Class II), as of November 12, 2026, 8:34 a.m. PKT
2. Alaska Superior Court order, Case No. 3AN-26-10304CI, November 11, 2026: https://public.courts.alaska.gov/web/media/MRCF/3AN-26-10304CI/order1.pdf
3. Alaska Beacon, “Judge dismisses petition by Peltola campaign seeking names of rejected absentee voters,” November 11, 2026: https://alaskabeacon.com/2026/11/11/judge-dismisses-petition-by-peltola-campaign-seeking-names-of-rejected-absentee-voters/
4. Associated Press via Boston 25 News, “Alaska judge rules request by Peltola campaign for ballot data in Senate race ‘not reasonable'”: https://www.boston25news.com/news/politics/alaska-judge-rules/YZVA4GSCXQ6JZC5PK7LHJJ6WZM/
5. Associated Press via myMotherLode, same report: https://mymotherlode.com/news/national/general-election/11301912/alaska-judge-rules-a-request-by-peltola-campaign-for-ballot-data-in-senate-race-is-not-reasonable.html
6. Associated Press via PBS News, “Judge weighs lawsuit brought by Peltola campaign over absentee ballots,” November 10, 2026: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/judge-weighs-lawsuit-brought-by-peltola-campaign-over-absentee-ballots-in-alaskas-us-senate-race
7. Alaska Public Media, “Peltola campaign demands information about rejected absentee ballots,” November 6, 2026: https://alaskapublic.org/news/2026-11-06/peltola-campaign-demands-information-about-rejected-absentee-ballots
8. Democracy Docket, “Peltola campaign sues Alaska for information on rejected mail ballots”: https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/peltola-campaign-sues-alaska-for-information-on-rejected-mail-ballots/
9. The Hill, “Peltola campaign sues Alaska over rejected absentee ballot records”: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/6205934-peltola-campaign-alaska-ballot-lawsuit/
10. Alaska Division of Elections, election calendar and results: https://www.elections.alaska.gov/
11. Alaska Department of Law, Public Records Act guidance: https://law.alaska.gov/doclibrary/APRA.html
12. Alaska Statutes §§ 40.25.110, 40.25.115, 40.25.120 (Alaska Public Records Act): https://law.justia.com/codes/alaska/title-40/chapter-25/

Research note: The court’s full order PDF could not be independently retrieved during this review, so details of the court’s reasoning were checked against AP and Alaska Beacon reporting. The statute summaries should be confirmed against current statutory text. The defendant names and Sullivan’s intervention come from news reporting and should be confirmed against the docket. Election figures are AP’s numbers as of the time stated and may have changed.

Byline: AllAboutLawyer.com Legal Content Research Team

Last fact-checked: November 12, 2026

Legal disclaimer: This article provides general U.S. election-law information, not legal advice. The election remains subject to the official ballot count, review process and certification.