Dunleavy administration assumed feds could force state to hand over private data on all Alaska voters

There was no compelling legal argument that led the Dunleavy administration to divulge private information about all Alaska voters to the Department of Justice as part of Donald Trump’s campaign to interfere with the 2026 elections.

Gov. Mike Dunleavy, Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom and temporary Attorney General Stephen Cox assumed that the Trump administration should have every Alaskan’s driver’s license number or Social Security number, date of birth, address and signature, despite a state law that keeps those secret.

Where was Dunleavy’s Alaska Statehood Defense office when we needed it?

Under a Democratic president, Dunleavy, Dahlstrom and Cox would have attacked any such demand as federal overreach. And they would have been right to do so.

The joint meeting Monday of the House State Affairs Committee and the House Judiciary Committee produced the important revelation that the Dunleavy administration started with the assumption that it should cooperate with whatever the Trump Department of Justice asked.

“We worked with the Department of Law and we were trying to cooperate with the federal government on the request and proceeded accordingly,” Carol Beecher, the director of the Division of Elections, said of the data release.

Beecher and her boss, Dahlstrom, should allow the public to see what legal advice they received from Cox and his subordinates. The Department of Law said Monday that the advice it provided is secret. It can only be released if the Division of Elections and/or Dahlstrom agree.

Beecher and Dahlstrom should do this today, so that the legal advice can be reviewed and understood before the joint meeting at 1:30 p.m. Wednesday of the Senate State Affairs Commitee and the Senate Judiciary Committee.

There is no justification for hiding these documents.

Beecher and Dahlstrom, who is running for governor, should start with the presumption that Alaska voters have a right to see exactly what AG Cox told them to do.

When the Trump Department of Justice demanded private information on every Alaska voter last summer, the Department of Law started with the presumption that they should comply.

“We started with the premise that we do try to cooperate with our federal law enforcement partners when possible,” Rachel Witty, director of legal services for the Department of Law, said Monday.

“And so when we received the request, we evaluated it, because it, you know, does include information that's otherwise confidential, we proceeded carefully to evaluate the request,” said Witty.

“Then we looked to see whether Alaska law provided it and our statute, AS 15.07.195(c)(1) does allow us to disclose this information with federal law enforcement. So, and we look to see whether they have the authority to request it and they have requested it under the enforcement provisions of the national, the NVRA. (National Voter Registration Act of 1993.)

“And so we saw that they did also have the authority. I guess just in terms of context at the time that this request was made we didn't, you know, there was no controlling law on the subject. There still is no binding law on Alaska.”

Three federal courts, so far, have ruled that the federal government does not have the authority that the Alaska attorney general claims it has. Most states have refused to go along with the federal edict, which is aimed at pressuring states to remove voters from registration lists based on what the Department of Justice says.

Witty said the three federal court decisions do not apply to Alaska.

“I understand there have been some decisions in other states but each of those states have different laws and so we looked at under Alaska law to see whether this disclosure was permitted and that was how the decision was made,” Witty said.

Witty said the NVRA gives the Department of Justice “quite broad” enforcement authority.

“I think we also start with the premise of both the federal and the state, and I think that as Rep. Gray said in our opening comments, we share a responsibility to ensure that voter lists are accurate and current and we share mutual interest in election integrity,” Wittty said.

“And, again, you know, we started with the presumption that, not just federal agencies, but also we share this presumption here in our state government that there's a presumption of regularity that these officials are asking for this information in good faith,” Witty said.

While three federal courts have ruled so far that the interpretation of federal law by the Dunleavy administration is wrong, Witty said the state lawyers did not look at whether the feds could force the state to act. They only looked at whether the state could willingly agree to share private information.

“The federal government was trying to compel the states that said no we don’t want to provide this information,” she said. Those states did not volunteer to provide the information.

“In our instance the federal government wasn’t trying to compel,” she said.

The state lawyers never analyzed whether the feds could force the state to share private information on all Alaska voters, according to the Department of Law, because the state was willing.

I would add this jumbled mess to the growing list of reasons why Cox should not be confirmed as attorney general.

Your contributions help support independent analysis and political commentary by Alaska reporter and author Dermot Cole. Thank you for reading and for your support. Either click here to use PayPal or send checks to: Dermot Cole, Box 10673, Fairbanks, AK 99710-0673.\

Write me at dermotmcole@gmail.com.