Alaska Democratic Senate candidate Mary Peltola must be granted extra points — for effrontery. After her campaign’s plot to engage in spreading confusion among the Alaskan electorate on the Republican spaces on the ballot was uncovered, you might think she’d slink her way into obscurity.
But that’s the old way, maybe. Not the new way.
Paul Jacob has covered that story, of scheming and anti-democratic trickery. The latest update is that her backers are suing the “state Division of Elections to disclose, ‘without further delay,’ the names of Alaskans who sent absentee ballots the agency turned down, according to a complaint filed on Nov. 6 in the Superior Court for the State of Alaska.
Accusing state elections officials of having “constructively denied and obstructed” the Peltola campaign’s request for public records pertaining to rejected ballots, the group said in the filing that the Nov. 18 certification deadline is fast approaching and any delay in releasing the records costs Peltola the opportunity to help ensure that qualified voters have their ballots counted.”
Tom Ozimek, “Peltola Campaign Sues Alaska Over Rejected Absentee Ballots,” The Epoch Times (November 7, 2026).
After such indecent trickery as engaged by the campaign in the Dan J./Dan S. Sullivan matter, this all may be a form of effrontery. Nevertheless, it remains true that the State must conduct its elections in an open and fair manner, obeying the letter of the law.
That being accepted, the State of Alaska has made a public statement about the lawsuit — which could, indeed, force an outcome on an extremely close race: “the Alaska Department of Law said the absentee ballot information Peltola’s campaign seeks is preliminary and that the Division of Elections has long treated such data as confidential.”
A lot of eyes will be on this case as well as the race itself.
