Suzanne Downing: Governor has a disastrous bill in front of him to sign. What will he do?

By SUZANNE DOWNING

March 28, 2026 – Senate Bill 64 is now heading for the governor’s desk. Sponsors — mostly Democrats and a few misguided Republicans — call it election reform. While it may improve some things, it weakens many others. The truth is that SB 64 contains several serious flaws that give the governor plenty of reasons to veto it.

Here are some the biggest problems with SB 64.

1. Tribal IDs allowed, but they don’t actually prove Alaska residency

SB 64 expands acceptable voter identification to include tribal IDs across registration, absentee voting, and in-person voting. The problem is pretty easy to understand: Tribal IDs do not establish Alaska residency. A person can be enrolled in a federally recognized tribe and live anywhere in the United States or even overseas. Being a member of a tribe is not the same as being a citizen of Alaska. Some 30,000 Alaska Natives live out of state — about 23% of the Native population, with the majority of those living in Washington state. Sure, they have ties to Alaska, but residency? No.

At the same time, the bill removes or limits some address-based documents that actually tied voters to Alaska, such as hunting and fishing licenses. The result is weaker residency verification.

Residency is the foundation of Alaska elections. If you loosen that standard, you destroy faith in the process.

2. SB 64 still does not require photo identification

Despite being framed as election integrity legislation, SB 64 does not require a photo ID. A voter can still rely on non-photo documents. Some tribal IDs may also lack photos, and the bill does not mandate a photo version.

That means Alaska still does not have a strict photo-ID requirement, one of the most basic election-security measures used around the world. Even third-world countries require photo ID to vote.

3. The new ballot-curing system invites selective treatment

SB 64 creates a post-election “curing” process for absentee and questioned ballots. If signatures or ID are missing, the Division of Elections must make a “reasonable effort” to contact voters and allow them to fix the ballot after Election Day.

What is a “reasonable effort”? It’s not defined. There is no requirement for uniform outreach, no public contact log, and no equal-treatment standard. That opens the door to selective curing, where some voters receive aggressive outreach and others do not. We know exactly how this will go and it’s the kind of ambiguity that undermines public confidence and invites lawsuits.

4. The witness requirement becomes meaningless

SB 64 keeps the absentee ballot witness requirement, but then allows missing witness signatures to be cured after Election Day. That turns the witness rule into little more than paperwork.

The Division of Elections does not verify witnesses now, and SB 64 does not change that. Instead, it adds a discretionary post-election fix that compounds the selective-curing problem, where some voters get their ballots “fixed,” while others do not.

5. Ranked-choice voting transparency without fixing ranked-choice voting

SB 64 requires more disclosure and daily updates for ranked-choice tabulation, but it does nothing to address core issues: exhausted ballots, complexity, and voter confusion. It does not tackle the main problem in Alaska: Ranked-choice voting.

6. Real-time ballot data creates a targeting advantage

The bill requires daily public updates on which precincts and ballot batches are being processed, combined with the new curing system. This allows well-funded campaigns to monitor which ballots are in trouble and target outreach to their supporters. It also supposedly inoculates ranked-choice voting, because delayed election results have been annoying to voters since it was implemented. The measure has been inserted in the bill to block the citizen ballot initiative to repeal ranked-choice voting.

7. “Rural liaison” is aspirational, not operational

SB 64 creates a rural community liaison but provides no funding, metrics, or enforcement. At the same time, it imposes short cure deadlines and relies on communication systems many rural communities don’t have. And it gives rural voters — Democrats — a major advantage.

8. Too much discretion for the Division of Elections

Throughout the bill, key decisions rely on phrases like “reasonable effort” and “the director may.” That includes audit selection, voter-notice requirements, and curing outreach. Discretion without guardrails invites inconsistent application and erodes trust.

9. Continued reliance on self-attestation

The bill integrates Permanent Fund Dividend data and other cross-checks, but citizenship and residency verification still rely heavily on self-attestation rather than documentary proof.

That leaves one of the central weaknesses in the system unchanged.

The governor’s choice

SB 64 does contain some better voter-roll maintenance, audits, and tracking tools. But those positives come with terrible tradeoffs. The bill expands discretion to government workers, weakens residency verification, avoids photo ID, and creates a selective curing process.

That’s why the governor’s decision is a tough one. He can sign it and accept those flaws. Or he can veto it and risk an override. I recommend a veto.

Suzanne Downing is founder and editor of The Alaska Story and is a longtime Alaskan.This column is meant to clarify the author’s position, since her photograph was deceitfully used to illustrate support for Senate Bill 64 in another publication.