Suzanne Downing: Five fatal flaws in Senate Bill 64 and why Alaskans demand a veto

By SUZANNE DOWNING

April 27, 2026 – As the clock ticks toward Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s April 30 deadline, Alaska stands at a crossroads with Senate Bill 64, the elections overhaul mess now sitting on his desk.

Democrats hail it as a bipartisan modernization that cleans voter rolls, adds ballot tracking, and improves access. 
It does none of this.

In reality, SB 64 layers complexity atop existing problems, introduces new legal and security risks, and fails to address Alaskans’ core concerns about ranked-choice voting, which is the primary reform needed, yet ignored by SB 64.

Rep. Rebecca Schwanke: SB 64 has far too many technical errors, should be vetoed

I’ve written about this bill since it was introduced. Others have also pointed out the problems.

Here are five serious flaws I see in the current enrolled version.

First, the bill creates unnecessary legal vulnerability around post-Election Day ballot counting and curing.

SB 64 standardizes a 10-day window for receiving rural absentee and overseas ballots and introduces a formal curing process allowing voters to fix missing signatures or ID issues up to 10 days after polls close. 
This delays results and introduces uncertainty.

While curing sounds compassionate, it risks clashing with emerging national standards from the Supreme Court that will likely set Election Day as the firm deadline. 
June is when that decision is expected.

Prolonged counting, especially when combined with ranked-choice tabulations, stalls completion, fuels uncertainty, and invites litigation. Alaska deserves elections resolved promptly on or near Election Night. We don’t need an extended “election season” that erodes public confidence.

Second, the legislation weakens verification for absentee and mail ballots.

Early versions sought to repeal the witness signature requirement for absentee ballots outright; the final compromise leaves verification thinner than many Alaskans would like. The bill changes ID requirements for registration (tribal ID added) but does not mandate robust, consistent verification at the point of voting for absentee ballots (beyond first-time voters in some cases).

No ID required for witness signature? You could write anyone’s name on the line, and no questions are asked.

Replacing an imperfect witness rule with no stronger alternative while expanding mail voting through prepaid postage creates avoidable security gaps in a state already heavily reliant on absentee ballots. Secure elections require verifiable identity at every stage, not just at registration.

Alaska Democrats celebrate controversial election bill, SB 64, and are using it to raise money

Third, aggressive voter roll maintenance risks erroneous purges and disenfranchisement, particularly for mobile Alaskans.

SB 64 expands triggers for inactivation using cross-state data such as out-of-state vehicle registrations, (which many Alaskans have, as they keep a car Outside), jury service, or public assistance records. 
Voters get 45 days to respond before shifting to inactive status. While cleaner rolls are overdue, this approach heightens the chance of mistakes affecting military families, college students, seasonal workers, and even Alaska Natives with traditional travel patterns.

Federal law protects inactive voters on the master list for years, but inadequate staffing at the Division of Elections could still lead to confusion, lost ballots, and unintended disenfranchisement. Precision matters more than speed when removing eligible citizens.

Fourth, the bill introduces partisan and demographic asymmetries that favor certain voting methods and populations. 


Provisions like accepting tribal IDs that do not establish residency (while eliminating other forms of ID that do establish residency, such as hunting and fishing licenses), registration tied to any Permanent Fund dividend application, no matter how valid, prepaid postage for absentee ballots (which is a step toward Anchorage-style voting), expanded curing, and new rural community liaisons disproportionately advantage mail-in voters and rural voting patterns that have historically leaned one direction politically.

Real-time or accelerated absentee data release could further advantage well-organized campaigns with resources for targeted outreach. Alaskans expect neutral rules that treat every eligible voter equally, not a system engineered to boost turnout in specific demographics or voting modes while sidelining broader integrity concerns.

Fifth, SB 64 piles on excessive administrative complexity without fixing Alaska’s fundamental election problems.

The bill mandates new ballot tracking systems, expanded audits, revised ranked-choice reporting, new crimes and penalties, cybersecurity programs, and more, creating a web of requirements that will strain the Division of Elections, especially in our vast geography. 
It does little to simplify processes or the one fix most needed: repealing ranked-choice voting.

Instead of streamlining, SB 64 risks creating two tiers of voters (urban vs. rural voters getting paid assistance) and burdens election officials with layers of new rules, reports, and potential implementation failures. 
The Division of Elections has already said it cannot adequately roll these requirements out this year. We have just 62 days until the ballots need to be certified for the printer and 67 days until the first ballots are mailed to overseas voters.

Good reform should make elections simpler, more transparent, and more trustworthy, not more bureaucratic.

Gov. Dunleavy has the opportunity to send a strong message: Alaska wants meaningful reform that puts election integrity first. A veto of SB 64 would allow the Legislature to start over with a cleaner, more focused bill, one that truly secures our votes without gambling on legal risks, complexity, or perceived imbalances.

Alaskans deserve better than SB 64. Our faith in elections depends on it.

Suzanne Downing is founder and editor of The Alaska Story and is a longtime Alaskan.

SB 64: The Ranked-Choice Voting Protection Act Alaska didn’t ask for deserves a veto

Pam Melin: We don’t need a ‘bigger’ election system. We need an honest one and SB 64 isn’t honest.

Brett Huber: SB 64 is lipstick on the pig of ranked-choice voting

House Finance rewrite of SB 64 changes voter-ID rules, sets up new fight over Alaska elections