State asks judge to keep absentee ballot review lists from Peltola campaign

The state asked an Anchorage judge Monday to reject Mary Peltola's campaign's request for the daily lists that show which absentee ballots election workers are leaning toward accepting or rejecting, arguing the lists are confidential and that releasing them would invade voters' privacy.

Alaskans for Mary sued the Division of Elections Nov. 6 under the state's public records law, seeking to learn whose absentee ballots were rejected and why. Dan Sullivan's campaign asked to join the case Monday on the state's side. "Granting Plaintiff alone that unprecedented access would unfairly favor one campaign over another," wrote its lawyer, Stacey C. Stone.

In its filing, the state argues that the records the campaign wants don't exist yet, because no ballot is officially accepted or rejected until the State Review Board finishes and the election is certified. Election workers give each ballot a preliminary code, such as "A" for likely accepted or "Y" for likely rejected because a witness signature is missing. The daily working list is confidential and thrown out after each session, the state says.

The state also says Alaska law doesn't let voters fix, or "cure," a flawed absentee ballot. "If what the campaign envisions is contacting some of the voters whose absentee ballots may be facing possible rejection, that would accomplish nothing beyond invading those voters' privacy," Assistant Attorneys General Margaret Paton Walsh and Thomas Flynn wrote.

Producing a version without voters' home addresses could take an outside vendor months and $20,000 to $50,000, the division's operations manager, Michaela Thompson, said in a sworn statement.

The campaign argues the records exist in at least three forms, that confidential details can be blacked out and that it isn't asking for addresses. It says it wants to make sure ballots are being counted consistently, and that its observers at the review sessions aren't allowed to take notes. "But the APRA does not contain any exception whereby public agencies may withhold public records whenever they believe that transparency would be a bad idea," wrote Thomas Amodio and the campaign's other lawyers.

The two sides talked Saturday at a judge's order but didn't agree. The state says it offered daily district totals of provisionally accepted and rejected ballots, and that the campaign turned them down because it needed voters' names. The campaign says the state refused to share the information in any form.

Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews had set a hearing for Tuesday morning. As of Tuesday evening, court files showed no ruling. Absentee review boards are scheduled to finish by Nov. 18. Under state law, voters whose absentee ballots are rejected get a mailed notice within 60 days after a general election is certified.