Why I oppose Senate Bill 64, the election bill that Democrats love

By SUZANNE DOWNING

Alaska Senate Bill 64 is being sold as “election reform” and even “bipartisan modernization.” But strip away the branding, and what’s left is a bill that systematically advantages one party in Alaska politics: Democrats.

The bill is sponsored by Sen. Bill Wielechowski, one of the most sophisticated and strategic Democrats in the Legislature. That matters. This is not a clumsy bill or an accidental one. SB 64 is carefully constructed, technically sound, and politically asymmetrical. It expands access in ways that predictably boost Democratic turnout while neutralizing or sidelining concerns more common among Republican voters.

That alone doesn’t make a bill illegitimate, but it does mean we should be honest about what it is.

SB 64 consistently lowers friction for voting methods and voter populations that already lean Democratic, while doing little to strengthen confidence among voters who prioritize election integrity, list accuracy, and verifiable processes.

Take voter identification. The bill adds tribal IDs as acceptable identification while removing commonly held documents like hunting and fishing licenses, utility bills, and bank statements. Tribal ID is not secure ID. Not in this state.

Alaska has a significant Alaska Native population, and there’s no dispute that a few rural Native voters face logistical issues. But policy choices have consequences. These changes are far more likely to increase turnout among Democratic-leaning voters than conservative ones. It’s designed that way.

This is a recurring pattern in SB 64: expand, streamline, and simplify for one political direction.

One of the most consequential elements of SB 64 is deeper integration of Permanent Fund Dividend applications into voter registration. Nearly every eligible Alaskan applies for a PFD. Making that system a near-universal registration pipeline, with limited triggers for follow-up or inactivation, dramatically expands the voter rolls.

Who benefits from that? The demographics overwhelmingly lean Democratic.

Supporters frame this as efficiency, but it creates a structural bias toward expansion without equivalent emphasis on accuracy. Republicans have long raised concerns about inflated rolls, outdated registrations, and the difficulty of removing inactive voters. SB 64 answers those concerns not by improving verification, but by redefining the problem away.

SB 64 further tilts the playing field by making absentee and mail voting easier across the board:

• Postage-paid absentee ballots, at a time when the state has a structural deficit and is looking at taxes.

• Extended receipt deadlines for ballots. What can possibly go wrong?

• Expanded ballot curing for missing signatures or IDs. This advantages idiots.

• 

Each of these provisions, individually, sounds reasonable. Collectively, they create a system where ballots are easier to cast, easier to fix after the fact, and harder to reject. This is what Sen. Wielechowski is pushing.

The bill also mandates expanded reporting, earlier release of absentee data, and daily updates during ballot processing. Wielechowski calls this transparency. In practice, it gives well-funded, data-savvy campaigns. often Democratic and union-backed, a tactical advantage. Real-time data allows targeted outreach while votes are still being cured or counted.

Similarly, the “true source” disclosure requirement for ballot measure funding sounds neutral, but it disproportionately impacts conservative and business-backed campaigns that rely on national issue groups. Unions, which fund through member dues and PACs, are largely unaffected, and in many cases benefit.

All of this is happening in the context of Alaska’s ranked-choice voting system. Higher turnout from Democratic-leaning voters doesn’t just help Democrats, it reshapes coalition math. So-called moderate Democrats benefit when turnout increases among low-propensity voters who are more likely to rank ideologically aligned candidates.

SB 64 doesn’t touch ranked-choice voting directly, but it feeds the system that supports it.

To be fair, not every section of the bill is partisan. Provisions related to poll worker pay, election security penalties, data breach notifications, and administrative cleanup are largely neutral and, in some cases, overdue.

But those sections function more as ballast than balance. They make the bill easier to defend while the real structural changes quietly advance.

SB 64 reflects a national Democratic strategy: expand access for people who are not consistently engaged, normalize mail-in voting, integrate government programs with registration, allow tribal identification to suffice, frame any resistance as hostility to democracy itself.

Republicans, for their part, are not wrong to worry that these changes make fraud harder to detect and confidence harder to restore.

I oppose this bill because it systematically expands voting methods and voter populations that favor Democrats, while sidelining concerns about list accuracy, election confidence, and partisan balance — all under the banner of “modernization.”

It boosts turnout among Democrat-leaning voters, makes absentee voting harder to challenge, expands automatic registration with few safeguards, and gives unions a big advantage. It’s a partisan bill. Just like its author Wielechowski is a partisan Bill. Should it pass, the governor should veto it.

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