Alaska Judge: Voters Don’t Have the Right To Fix Absentee Ballot Mistakes

An Alaska judge ruled Friday that the state constitution does not guarantee voters the right to fix errors on their absentee ballots. (Adobe Stock)

An Alaska judge ruled Friday that the state constitution does not guarantee voters the right to fix errors on their absentee ballots — a process known as “ballot curing” that is offered in some form by at least 33 states. 

The ruling comes as part of a lawsuit filed by Arctic Village Council, League of Women Voters of Alaska and two voters who argued that the state’s lack of opportunity for voters to cure defective ballots disenfranchised thousands of voters during a June 2022 special primary election conducted entirely via mail-in voting. 

Under Alaska law, absentee ballots aren’t counted unless they include certain voter ID information and are executed with a voter’s own signature as well as the signature of an adult witness. 

Although state law requires election officials to notify voters if their absentee ballots were rejected, it does not mandate that voters be provided with an opportunity to cure ballot mistakes — nor does it require officials to notify voters of absentee ballot issues prior to election results being finalized. In other words, voters have no recourse to fix their defective absentee ballots under current state election law. 

While Alaska election officials defended the state’s rules in the name of “deterring fraud,” voting rights advocates who sued over the matter argued that the absence of cure procedures leads to unnecessary disenfranchisement and violates the fundamental right to vote in addition to voters’ due process rights under the Alaska Constitution.  

According to the plaintiffs, approximately 5,000 otherwise timely absentee ballots were rejected due to common mistakes during Alaska’s June 2022 special primary election, but could have been counted had the state offered cure procedures. Rejection rates, the plaintiffs noted, were significantly higher in areas with greater percentages of Alaska Native voters.  

But in Friday’s decision in favor of state officials, Anchorage Superior Court Judge Yvonne Lamoureux concluded that the state’s current absentee ballot rules place only a “minimal burden on the right to vote.” 

“The State has identified legitimate and valid interests in protecting the integrity of the elections and deterring voter fraud that justify imposing a minimal burden on voters,” the ruling continued. 

Lamoureux added that the state’s “absentee ballot requirements do not place voters in a situation where they are forced to choose whether to participate in an election.” The order further pointed out that ballot rejection rates were likely higher in the June 2022 special primary election raised in the case since it was the state’s first election conducted entirely by mail. 

In the 2024 general election, the state rejected 1,303 absentee ballots — or 1.65% of all ballots cast. Although that number may appear somewhat low, an attorney for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit dismissed Friday pointed out that “the smaller electorate numbers in Alaska and the frequency that we have really close elections certainly underscores the need for ballot notice and cure.”

During the state’s 2024 legislative session, lawmakers considered a bill that would have implemented absentee ballot notice and cure procedures, but the proposal died in the state House.  

Currently, election reform proposals are before both chambers of the state Legislature that would institute ballot curing and eliminate the state’s witness signature requirement, which contributes to a significant portion of ballot rejections each election cycle. 

In a recent press release, the ACLU of Alaska — one of the legal organizations representing the plaintiffs — indicated that it would prioritize working with the Legislature this session to ensure the passage of a ballot curing law, among other reforms. 

The ACLU of Alaska has not yet said whether it will appeal Friday’s ruling to the Alaska Supreme Court. 

Read the order here.

Learn more about the case here.