Alaska has taken a neutral stance in a major U.S. Supreme Court case that could change how absentee ballots are counted across the country. The case focuses on whether ballots that arrive after Election Day can still be counted if they were mailed on time.
On Friday, Alaska’s appointed attorney general filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case. The filing does not support either side. Instead, it explains how Alaska’s geography and weather make strict ballot deadlines difficult to meet.
The case began in Mississippi. It challenges a state law that allows absentee ballots to be counted if they arrive shortly after Election Day, as long as they are postmarked by that day. Several political groups and a voter argue that federal law requires ballots to be received by Election Day to count.
The Supreme Court’s decision could affect elections nationwide, including future midterm races. The case also comes during ongoing political debates about mail voting, despite repeated findings that voter fraud through mail ballots is rare.
Alaska is one of about half of U.S. states that allow ballots cast by Election Day to arrive later. Under Alaska law, in-state absentee ballots can be counted if they arrive up to ten days after the election. Ballots from overseas voters have a fifteen-day window.
In its brief, Alaska explains that many communities are extremely hard to reach. More than 80 percent of towns and villages are not connected by roads. Travel often depends on small planes or boats. In November, harsh weather can delay or stop transport for days.
Because of this, ballots mailed on time may not reach election officials by Election Day. Alaska argues that a strict national rule could unfairly block thousands of valid votes.
The brief gives real examples. In 2024, poll workers in Atqasuk, a remote northern village, counted votes on Election Day. Severe weather stopped them from reporting results by phone that night. They sealed the ballots and mailed them securely. The state elections office received them nine days later.
This situation raises a key question in the case. When is a ballot truly “received”? Is it when local poll workers secure it, or only when it reaches state officials days later?
The lower appeals court ruled that ballots must be both cast and received by state officials by Election Day. Alaska warns that this rule may work in states with strong road systems, but not in places with limited access and long distances.
Even in-person absentee voting can raise timing issues. In remote areas, a voter may cast a ballot with a local official shortly before Election Day. That official must then send the unopened ballot to a regional office. Travel delays can slow this process.
Alaska says it is clear when a ballot is cast, meaning the vote cannot change. But it is not always clear when the ballot is received, especially in rural regions with weak transport and communication systems.
The state’s choice to remain neutral has drawn criticism. An elections attorney said Alaska should have clearly defended its own voting laws. He warned that a ruling against late-arriving ballots could block many Alaskans from voting through no fault of their own.
State officials responded that the goal of the filing was clarity, not politics. Alaska said it wants clear rules that respect election integrity while recognizing real-world challenges.
Election leaders in the state stressed that Alaska will follow whatever rule the Court sets. But they asked the justices to understand that simple rules in one state can create confusion in another.
The brief also highlights mail delivery issues. Many Alaskans depend on mail service to vote. Unlike most states, mail carriers cannot drive to most homes. Planes, boats, and other methods are often needed.
Recent postal service guidance adds more concern. New rules say ballots may not always receive a postmark on the same day they are mailed. This could affect voters across the country, not just in Alaska.
As the Supreme Court reviews the case, Alaska hopes the final ruling will protect both election fairness and the right of every eligible voter to be heard, no matter how remote their home may be.
