The Anchorage Election Commission convened on January 16, 2026, to address old business regarding ballot rejection trends and public outreach strategies, followed by new business including election updates, manual revisions, and officer elections. The meeting featured a significant discussion on using a new signature database to reduce rejections due to signature mismatches and exploring code changes to allow voters to update signatures in person. Commissioners unanimously agreed to re-elect leadership and adjust the meeting calendar to accommodate an annual risk-limiting audit.
Accuracy Note: The meeting transcript contains significant inconsistencies regarding speaker names (e.g., opening identifies Lauren Woodyman as Chair, but the outcome declares Katie elected Chair; nomination for Vice Chair mentions "Lauren" but result names "Mr. Lehman"). The summary reflects the explicit outcomes stated in the text but flags these discrepancies as required by the instructions.
I'm gonna call this meeting to order. My privilege to be the chair of the election commission. The other commissioners here are Ralph Deal. I'm Lauren Woodyman. And our staff present are Jessica Millie, Assistant Municipal Attorney. Jamie Hines municipal clerk. Liz Edwards, election administrator. There you go. You can speak in your mic. If everybody can take a moment to read them. Amy. Did you turn the fan off? I did. Okay. Okay. I move the adoption of the business of the medium vapor 17. Sure. Thank you. I do have an item of old business to add to our agenda. We did have two work sessions in between the last meeting and this one. And to recap, we talked about advertising and pushing our numbers. And for that, I added a list of rejected ballots for our new member so he can see what we're looking at and why it's important. Are there any other additions to the agenda? Hearing none, let's get to old business then. What we talked about was how we, the election commission, can work with the department and the assembly in addressing some of these challenges that we see on the ballots that we are rejecting for reasons that need education. And when you go through the list, you see that we are we've got a lot of them which unable to voter ID in one of the elections. One of those reasons was that people were taking selfies to show their ID. So some of them were just interesting. People either don't understand that when they take them to post office, they have to add carry their ballots in to have them hand stamped to show that they're on that date, or they're just mailing them the next day and figuring it'll be okay. But the number from 2024 was 269 ballots we rejected for that reason, and 25 was 301 ballots we rejected for that reason. The other thing, and to me, one of the most challenging ones is no signature match. Correct? Jamie. The code requires that we get the signatures from the division of elections. And the division of elections gets their signatures from various things that voters signed for the division itself, but also from the division uh for the DMV. So yes, we do see some signatures from the DMV. And knowing that I just renewed a driver's license not that long ago, it's now a signature on a pad. And I've never signed the same way on a pad that I do with a pen in my hand. And I doubt seriously, most people five signatures are going to match. We get five signatures from the division of elections. Five won't just be, it isn't just the most recent election. So five. What is the department feel is the main problem for the signatures that don't match? Um well Liz was gonna talk in her report, but we have uh we have developed a database, and so the reason you see that the no sigmatch numbers went from 602 to 386 from 2024 to 2025 is because we built a database, and so now we keep those signatures that we retain every year from the division of elections, and we try to keep the um wet signatures on our own ballots as opposed to keeping the um DMV signatures. So we believe that that signature database has helped us to reduce that number. Listen, I don't have any problem at all with reordering the agenda letting you share if you'd like to, what your thoughts are on that. Yeah, I can just talk briefly on that point so we can keep going with the old. Um so basically just what Jamie said, I was just gonna address that. We finished um the main stages of the signature database, and then I um brought in non-mayoral years to compare. So 2025 we have 386 no sigmatch um rejected.