Alaska Voters Know How to Vote

Alaska voters know how to mark a ballot, and the law trusts them to do it. That is the point the U.S. Justice Department's lawsuit over our Senate race tried to unsettle.

The Justice Department asked a federal judge to hold up certification of Alaska's U.S. Senate race. It wanted time to investigate whether votes cast for the candidate Daniel J. Sullivan were really "meant" for Senator Dan Sullivan. As its amended complaint put it, that relief was needed only if Senator Sullivan did not win.

What the court decided

On November 1, 2026, Chief Judge Sharon L. Gleason dismissed the case. She held that the United States lacked standing because it could not identify any lawful remedy for the injury it claimed.

The reason was simple. The only way to learn what a voter "meant" is to find out who cast a ballot and ask. The court found the government had offered "no explanation" of how ballot segregation and a court-ordered investigation by law enforcement into voters' intent "could be implemented while preserving the secrecy of the ballot." Relief like that would violate Alaskans' right to a secret ballot.

The decision is now cited as United States v. Alaska, 2026 WL 3271034 (D. Alaska Nov. 1, 2026). The dismissal was without prejudice, as the law requires when a court lacks jurisdiction.

Your ballot speaks for itself

A secret ballot means no one, including the government, gets to ask you afterward what you meant. The Alaska Constitution guarantees it (art. V, § 3). Alaska's rules of evidence let every voter refuse to say how they voted (Evid. R. 507). The U.S. Supreme Court has explained that the secret ballot exists to protect voters from intimidation and fraud.

Alaska reads a vote from the ballot itself:

• The marks count. A mark counts if it is inside the oval or touching it so as to show the voter's choice clearly. When a ballot needs a closer look, it is set aside because of its marks, not because of who cast it.
• Intent comes from the ballot. In the 2010 Senate race, the Alaska Supreme Court held that "a voter's intention is paramount," and it read that intention from the ballot, not from interviews.
• Ranked choice carries your own choices. If your first choice is eliminated, your vote moves to the next candidate you ranked. A voter who ranked Daniel J. Sullivan first and Senator Sullivan second has that vote count for Senator Sullivan, with no investigation needed.

That last point matters. Any voter who truly wanted Senator Sullivan, and ranked him, will have that choice counted the way the ballot shows.

A lawsuit that doubts the voter

I believe this lawsuit was brought for political advantage, not to protect anyone's vote. The public record points that way. The relief was sought only if one candidate lost. And, as quoted in the voter groups' November 9 motion, President Trump said of the lawsuit: "I'm the one that said do it."

What troubles me most is the message it sends to voters. In an October 30 statement posted by the Justice Department, a federal official said law enforcement was working to make sure "your vote counts in a way that you meant and intended it to count." Read plainly, that assumes Alaskans cannot be trusted to mark their own ballots, and that the government should check.

Arguably, the lawsuit did more than doubt voters. It asked a court to set aside protections for the secret ballot that states adopted more than a century ago and that courts have upheld ever since. The remedy it sought, asking voters what they meant, would itself have injured the very voters the law protects.

I see it the other way. My choice is mine to make and mine to keep private. If a voter is confused, the answer is better information before the election, not an investigation after it.

The courts have long said that complaints about who is on the ballot belong at the ballot box, not in a lawsuit after the votes are in.

Where the case stands

The Justice Department appealed the same day the case was dismissed. The appeal is United States of America v. State of Alaska, et al., No. 26-7304, in the Ninth Circuit.

On November 9, the League of Women Voters of Alaska, Common Cause and two Alaska voters asked the Ninth Circuit to affirm the dismissal without full briefing. They also asked the court to consider sanctions for a frivolous appeal. The Justice Department's response is due in the coming days.

Meanwhile, the count continues. Alaska will run its ranked-choice tabulation once all ballots are in, and the state will certify the winner. Under the U.S. Constitution, the Senate is the final judge of its own members' elections (art. I, § 5).

Trust the voter

Alaskans studied their ballots, ranked their choices and cast them in secret. That is how it should be. Whoever wins, the result should come from what voters marked, counted under Alaska law, not from what investigators decide we must have meant.

If Mary Peltola wins, it will not be because Daniel J. Sullivan's name was on the ballot. It will be because a majority of the votes counted in the final ranked-choice round went to her, as the voters themselves marked them.

The ballot box, not the courthouse, is where voters settle elections.

Sources

• United States v. Alaska, No. 3:26-cv-00376-SLG, 2026 WL 3271034 (D. Alaska Nov. 1, 2026) (order of dismissal, Dkt. 79)
• United States of America v. State of Alaska, et al., No. 26-7304 (9th Cir.), docket
• Appellees' Motion for Summary Affirmance, No. 26-7304, Dkt. 10 (Nov. 9, 2026), PDF
• Alaska Const. art. V, § 3; Alaska R. Evid. 507; Alaska Stat. § 15.15.360
• Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992)
• Miller v. Treadwell, 245 P.3d 867 (Alaska 2010)
• Kohlhaas v. State, 518 P.3d 1095 (Alaska 2022)
• U.S. Const. art. I, § 5