Alaskans have every right to be frustrated with ranked-choice voting. It was forced through in 2020, and we have been dealing with the consequences ever since. It confuses voters, produces outcomes that fall short of a true majority and leaves ballots uncounted in the final round. That is not how a republic is supposed to function.
I also understand the frustration with Senate Bill 64, but perhaps some miss what this bill actually does and why it matters.
SB 64 is not a rescue plan for ranked-choice voting, nor does it give anyone extra talking points. It is a cleanup bill for Alaska’s election system, maybe the best we have ever seen. Before we talk about RCV, we need to be honest about the system it sits on – our election system. Over the last decade, the Division of Elections has had repeated operational failures that have chipped away at voter confidence.
The bill requires voter roll cleanup, audits, and faster removal of outdated registrations.
In 2020, the state’s online voter registration system had a data exposure through a vendor platform. Personal voter information was put at risk. The tabulation system was not compromised, but that is not the point. It showed weaknesses in how voter data is handled and protected.
Absentee ballots have been another problem. In the 2024 general election, more than 1,300 absentee ballots were rejected, about 1.7 percent. In the 2022 special primary, rejection rates were even higher, nearing 4.5 percent statewide and close to 14 percent in rural districts. Many of those ballots were rejected over technical issues like missing witness signatures.
What makes it worse is that Alaska lacks a meaningful notice-and-cure process. The Division of Elections is still following internal guidance that says they “may” contact voters in limited (undefined) circumstances. If a voter makes a simple mistake, there is currently no statutory opportunity to fix it. Courts have made clear that without legislative action, the Division is not required to provide that option. The result is straightforward: valid votes get thrown out over fixable errors.
We have also seen basic execution failures. In 2024, voters in Dillingham, King Salmon, and Aniak were sent the wrong ballots for their judicial districts. Those ballots did not match local races, and corrections had to be made after the fact.
Two of the three districts with the highest need for ballot curing in the last election were conservative.
There have been issues with ballot design and sample ballots that have created confusion, especially in a ranked-choice system. There have been logistical problems as well, including mishandled election materials during transport; one ballot bag was found in the ditch by the Anchorage Post Office. And every voter has seen the delays and counting that stretches days or weeks past Election Day. This erodes trust in the outcome.
That is the system SB 64 is addressing, not RCV.
The bill requires voter roll cleanup, audits, and faster removal of outdated registrations. It strengthens cybersecurity and penalties for tampering. It creates ballot tracking so voters can follow their ballot from submission to counting. It ties registration more closely to the Permanent Fund Dividend system with stronger contact-only language. It also addresses deepfake media in campaigns.
These are not partisan ideas. They are direct responses to real failures. They are reforms conservatives have been asking for long before ranked-choice voting.
Some provisions have raised concerns among conservatives, particularly removing the witness signature requirement and allowing ballot curing. That concern deserves to be heard, but it needs to be grounded in what actually happened.
We are not choosing between fixing our elections and repealing RCV. We can do both
Two of the three districts with the highest need for ballot curing in the last election were conservative. One was a military-heavy district. Another was a Mat-Su district represented by Elexie Moore. These are our voters. When ballots are rejected over errors, conservatives are losing votes, too. Fixing that is not about loosening standards. It is about making sure lawful votes count.
The portion of the bill that deals with ranked-choice voting is minimal. SB 64 requires the Division of Elections to release ranked-choice tabulation data as part of election night reporting and updates. It does not change how votes are counted. It does not eliminate exhausted ballots. It does not create a true majority requirement. It puts the math in front of the public.
Right now, when ranked-choice voting produces questionable outcomes, its defenders point to everything else: slow counts, messy voter rolls, and absentee confusion. They shift attention away from the system itself.
Once SB 64 is in place, those excuses go away. Cleaner rolls, better tracking, and transparent reporting mean the focus lands where it should. If a candidate wins without a true majority, or ballots drop out before the final round, voters will see it clearly and transparently. THIS is how you mitigate RCV.
ALASKA WATCHMAN DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX
That is why SB 64 does not protect ranked-choice voting. It exposes it.
We are not choosing between fixing our elections and repealing RCV. We can do both. The repeal effort is already headed for the November 2026 ballot, where Alaskans will decide whether to return to a system grounded in simple majority rule.
Passing SB 64 does not stop that vote. It strengthens the case for it by removing the cover RCV has been operating under. No more blaming the machinery. Just a clear view of the outcome.
We should not leave a broken system in place just to make another problem look worse. Fix what is in front of us, then take on the larger issue.
SB 64 restores confidence in the process. Repeal restores confidence in the outcome.
Do both. Clean up the system now, then make the case in 2026. Alaska deserves elections where the winner earns a real majority and every voter understands the result. That is how you restore trust.
The views expressed here are those of the author.
Editor’s note: Senate Bill 64 passed the State House on March 23 with a 23-16 vote. Since the House made several changes to the bill, it now heads back to the Senate for final approval before it can be forwarded for Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s consideration.
