JUNEAU, Alaska (KTUU) – A legislative hearing into the legality of Alaska’s voter roll transfer to the federal government ended in partisan accusations Monday, with one Republican calling it a “set-up” and others saying it was unnecessary, while Democrats defended it as needed oversight.

“Andrew (Gray) and the committee has a bias. I mean, that much is obvious from watching it,” Rep. Kevin McCabe, R-Big Lake, told Alaska’s News Source walking out of the hearing before it gaveled out. “Most of the testimony was slanted against the state and against the federal government.”

The House State Affairs and Judiciary committees met jointly Monday to hear testimony about whether Dahlstrom violated the law when she transferred the entirety of Alaska’s voter rolls to the federal government.

Rep. Steve St. Clair, R-Wasilla, agreed with his Big Lake counterpart that the hearing was unnecessary.

“I think we’re speculating on what the intent of the DOJ is and I believe we need to wait and see,” he said.

Rep. Andrew Gray, D-Anchorage and chair of the House Judiciary Committee, pushed back when told of his Republican colleagues’ reaction.

“I think that I went above and beyond to try to include everybody,” Gray said as he left the meeting. “If people are saying that if the Obama administration had asked for the unredacted voter rolls from Alaska, that all these Republicans around here would have just been like, ‘oh, take it all. Take all of our information.’

“That is not true. That is absolutely not true,” Gray added.

Rep. Ted Eischeid, D-Anchorage, backed his House majority colleague, questioning whether Republicans would have preferred if the topic not be addressed at all.

“The minority folks on the committee had a chance to ask questions,” he said. “I think this is a meeting we needed to have. Alaskans have asked for it. I think there’s still a lot of unanswered questions. So shedding light on the state’s actions, that’s bias?”

Dahlstrom did not attend the hearing. Gray said she was invited multiple times but cited scheduling conflicts. The lieutenant governor oversees the Alaska Division of Elections under state law.

In her most recent public statement — published Feb. 25 on her gubernatorial campaign website, not through her official office — Dahlstrom defended the voter roll transfer, saying the agreement with the DOJ was “lawful, limited” and that Alaska retains full authority over its voter rolls.

“The DOJ cannot remove a single voter from our rolls,” she wrote. “Its role is limited to identifying potential issues, such as duplicate registrations or individuals who may have moved or passed away.”

Representatives from the state’s Department of Law and Division of Elections both testified in defense of Dahlstrom’s decision. Rachel Witty, the Department of Law’s director of legal services, told the committee the state viewed the DOJ’s purview.

“The DOJ’s enforcement authority is quite broad,” Witty said. “And so, we interpreted their request as being used to evaluate and enforce HAVA compliance.”

HAVA — the Help America Vote Act — is a federal law that sets election administration standards for states.

Lawmakers also heard from an assortment of outside witnesses who largely questioned the legality of Dahlstrom’s actions, including former Lt. Gov. Loren Leman, who served under Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski, and former Attorney General Bruce Botelho, who served under Democratic Gov. Tony Knowles.

The Documents: A Months-Long Timeline

As part of the hearing, the committee released months’ worth of documents between the Department of Justice — led by Attorney General Pam Bondi — and Dahlstrom’s office, detailing the effort to transfer Alaska’s voter rolls over to Washington.

The DOJ first asked Dahlstrom to release the voter rolls in July of last year, citing the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, which requires states to allow federal inspection of “official lists of eligible voters.”

Dahlstrom agreed to release the records in August, providing a list of voters designated as “inactive” and “non-citizens,” along with their voting records and the statewide voter registration list — but it did not include what the DOJ wanted.

“As the Attorney General requested, the electronic copy of the statewide [voter registration list] must contain all fields,” reads an email sent 10 days after Dahlstrom agreed to release the data, “including the registrant’s full name, date of birth, residential address, his or her state driver’s license number or the last four digits of the registrant’s social security number.”

Dahlstrom agreed to provide the full details months later, in December, citing a state statute that permits sharing confidential information with a federal agency if it uses “the information only for governmental purposes authorized under law.” Those purposes, she wrote in the email, are to “test, analyze and assess the State’s compliance with federal laws.”

“I attach some significance to the fact that it took the State … nearly four months to respond to the Department of Justice’s demand,” former AG Botelho told the committee.

That same day, Dahlstrom, Alaska Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher and DOJ Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon signed a memorandum of understanding governing how the data could be accessed, used, and protected.

Dahlstrom’s office publicly announced the transfer nine days after the MOU was signed — nearly six months after the DOJ first made its request.

“Alaska is committed to the integrity of our elections and to complying with applicable law,” Dahlstrom said in the December statement. “Upon receiving the DOJ’s request, the Division of Elections, in consultation with the Department of Law, provided the voter registration list in accordance with federal requirements and state authority, while ensuring appropriate safeguards for sensitive information.”

A 10-page legal analysis from legislative counsel Andrew Dunmire, requested by House Majority Whip Rep. Zack Fields, D-Anchorage, concluded that the DOJ’s demand defied legal bounds.

“The DOJ’s request for state voter data is unprecedented,” Dunmire’s analysis states, adding that the legal justification the DOJ used to demand access to the data has never been applied this way before.

“Multiple states refused DOJ’s request, which has resulted in litigation that is now working its way through federal courts across the country,” he adds.

The Senate holds an identical hearing Wednesday, when its State Affairs and Judiciary committees take up the same questions.

See a spelling or grammar error? Report it to web@ktuu.com

Copyright 2026 KTUU. All rights reserved.