Alaskans have every right to be frustrated with ranked-choice voting. It was forced through in 2020, killed by dark money in 2024, and we have been living with the fallout ever since. It confuses voters, produces results that fall short of a true majority, and leaves ballots on the cutting room floor through exhaustion. That’s not how a republic is supposed to work, and it’s not what most Alaskans thought they were getting.

I know there is much more that could be done. I also understand the frustration with SB64, but many are missing what this bill actually does and why it matters.

SB64 does not change how ranked-choice votes are counted. It does not fix exhausted ballots, and it does not create a true majority requirement. The process stays exactly as it is today, and I have been really clear that it needs to go. This bill was never designed to take that on, and it should not be judged on something it was never meant to do.

SB64 is about the election system, the nuts and bolts that make any election work. Before we argue about ranked-choice, we need to be honest about the foundation underneath it. If that foundation is weak, it does not matter what voting method you use, confidence breaks down either way. For more than a decade, the Division of Elections has had real, documented failures that have chipped away at public trust.

In 2020, a vendor issue exposed voter data. Absentee ballots have been a chronic problem, with rejection rates climbing in some areas into double digits, often over simple, fixable issues like a missing witness signature. Although the division of elections has a band-aid in place, Alaska still has no clear notice-and-cure law, so valid votes get tossed with no consistent chance to fix them. That is not a small issue, it goes directly to whether lawful votes are counted or discarded.

Execution has not been any better. In 2024, entire regions, including Dillingham, King Salmon, and Aniak, were sent the wrong ballots. We have seen ballot confusion, mishandled materials, ballots found in a ditch where they never should have been and counts that drag on well past Election Day. Every one of these failures, on its own, might be explained away. Taken together, they point to a system that needs to be tightened up.

That is the system SB64 takes on. It requires voter roll cleanup and regular audits, strengthens cybersecurity, adds ballot tracking so voters can see where their ballot is from start to finish, and cleans up how voter registration ties to the Permanent Fund Dividend with clearer intent. These are basic integrity measures that should have been in place years ago.

These are also fixes conservatives have been calling for long before ranked-choice showed up. They are practical, overdue, and grounded in problems we have all seen firsthand.

There are concerns about ballot curing and witness requirements, and those deserve a fair look. Safeguards matter, and no one is arguing otherwise. But we also need to be honest about who is getting hit by the current system. Some of the highest rejection rates are in conservative-leaning districts. These are our voters. When lawful ballots are rejected over preventable errors, we are the ones taking the loss.

Last election, 1,033 ballots were rejected and 735 of those could have been cured. This year, that number is expected to be under 500. That is not some massive loophole, it is a manageable number of Alaskans whose votes should not be thrown out over fixable mistakes. This is not about lowering standards, it is about applying them fairly and making sure eligible votes are not discarded over paperwork errors.

On the ranked-choice process, SB64 does one thing, it forces transparency. The Division has to release the round-by-round tabulation data so the public can see exactly how the outcome was reached. That is something every voter, regardless of party, should expect.

Right now, when results raise questions, defenders of ranked-choice point everywhere but the process itself, slow counts, messy rolls, ballot issues. Once SB64 is in place, those excuses start to fall away. The system is cleaner, the data is visible, and the focus lands where it should.

That is why SB64 does not protect ranked-choice voting. It removes the cover and lets people see it for what it is, without distractions or excuses.

There are still big fights ahead. SB64 does not remove Alaska from ERIC, and it does not replace Dominion machines. Those concerns are real, and they are not going away just because this bill passes. They need to be addressed directly, and in full view of the public.

But we are not choosing between fixing the system and repealing ranked-choice. We can do both, and we should. In fact, fixing the system first makes the repeal argument stronger, not weaker. It ensures that when Alaskans vote to repeal RCV, they are doing so in a system they can actually trust.

The RCV and Open Primary repeal effort is already headed to the 2026 ballot, where Alaskans will decide whether to return to a process with clear outcomes and straightforward results. To do that we need an election system that we can trust. We should not leave a broken system in place just to make another problem look worse. Fix what is in front of us, then take on the bigger fight.

SB64 restores confidence in how elections are run. Repeal restores confidence in how elections are decided. Alaska deserves both, and it is time we delivered.

Originally published on Substack: https://kevinjmccabe.substack.com/p/why-sb64-doesnt-save-rank-choice